Premeditation

[cecybeans]

Maybe Dr. G is making the assumption of homicide based solely on the fact that since toddlers do not naturally die with duct tape on their nose and mouth (and based on Huck ruling, et al.) , and would be unable to perform that act on themselves, it would therefore be logical to assume that, duct tape found on a body would indicate at least deliberate (premeditated) attempt to cover up, if not the actual COD.

An elaborate cover-up, in the absence of any other information is, even though after the fact, an indication of proclivity toward premeditated behavior - it is a calculated attempt to obfuscate the truth by deception. It might be reasonable to transfer the post-mortem act of "premeditated" cover-up to the actual crime itself if there exists no other indicator as to state of mind. I'm just trying to reason how the SA can build a case for premeditation and perhaps if all of the defendant's behavior surrounding the incident creates a pattern that points to it as a probability, then it would be logical to assume it is true in the absence of any conflicting information. Sort of a psychological law of motion.

 

[Brini]

It sounds like you consider Ray Kronk to be an innocent bystander. It's been quite awhile (Furhman comes to mind) since I ran into a more preposterous storyline than his. Kronk should end up under the bus; his claims truly boggle the mind.

It just happens to be that a former bountry hunter accidently collects on the reward in this case? That's a ... Ripley eat your heart out story.

There is no evidence against Kronk. And, the baby was not in his care and custody.

 

[LCoastMom]

Admitting that you would convict and execute Casey on a basis that was lacking in evidence represents pure honesty. I certainly can't admire that you would do such a thing, but I do admire your honesty.

Your post supports my holding on the need for professional jurors in capital or high-profile cases, and it further helps to explain the large number of wrongful convictions and/or wrongful demonetizations in cases such as this one.

Not trying to be a jerk, truly wondering how many of us make that claim from the comfort of our home, but if we were in the position to have to decide to take away someones life, would actually act on those personal desires if we were called to JD?

After following the Christopher Barrios trial last week, reading the charges, the self incrimination and the taped police interview; I can honestly say I wish the defendants could be ground up, alive and fed to Michael Vicks dogs. I understand GA stopped using the chair, after it malfunctioned a couple times, that works for me too. We can let Christopher's family choose the method. Maybe they would rather use a base ball bat?

I can sit here tonite feeling all these things are equally appropriate methods for putting down monsters, maybe even using a couple of those methods together. I can say with equal truthfulness I hope he got a fair trial, that is what our system strives for; right?

How can we use professional jurors and still give your average criminals a jury of their peers? It seems harder and harder, although with 10% unemployment, we may find a wider variety of potential jurors then what is available on a good year. Why isn't it a better plan to give jurors or potential jurors better instructions for whatever panel they may end up on?

Maybe the high schools could add Jury Duty to the grade 12 Government class, as a prerequisite to graduate. It could give a basic understanding of the law, with some understanding of capital punishment, when, why & who; without the stress of a victim, a defendant and a news team (or 12).

It might even spark some of the kids to look into a career or educate some who have started a "career" as juveniles, to realize theres no time like the present to straighten up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
​

 

[Ripley007]

It sounds like you consider Ray Kronk to be an innocent bystander. It's been quite awhile (Furhman comes to mind) since I ran into a more preposterous storyline than his. Kronk should end up under the bus; his claims truly boggle the mind.

It just happens to be that a former bountry hunter accidently collects on the reward in this case? That's a ... Ripley eat your heart out story.

Ripley? Me Ripley? or a figure of speech?

Personally, I agree, the Kronk angle just doesn't quiet add up to a cohehisive "innocent bystander" story, but, I don't know what more to make of it.
Reward to a bounty hunter? Did LP and company get a reward in the Caylee case?

I'm honestly asking here.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

So you are suggesting she would have to be wrapped like a mummy in order to show premeditation.

No. But if a person's hands are not tied, they will use their hands to remove anything that is obstructing their ability to breathe. And if a person intended to commit murder by suffocation, they would certainly think to use the tape in a manner that would be most hard to remove if their victim had the freedom of their hands, as Caylee had. In my mind, that means the murderer would wrap tape entirely arround the head versus using a short strip of tape that, obviously, would be much easier for their intended victim to remove. Even more non sensical to me is thinking that after a short strip of tape was applied, the alleged murderer then reached for a heart sticker.

Given the case facts, I can't see how these short pieces duct tape can prove premeditation, and the fact that the cause of death is also not known makes it impossible to prove the tape was the instrument of death. However, I can envision short pieces of duct tape being used to prevent leakage, such as pool water.

 

[Wudge]

Ripley? Me Ripley? or a figure of speech?

Personally, I agree, the Kronk angle just doesn't quiet add up to a cohehisive "innocent bystander" story, but, I don't know what more to make of it.
Reward to a bounty hunter? Did LP and company get a reward in the Caylee case?

I'm honestly asking here.

(tip of my hat)

My apologies for the confusion. I was referring to the Ripley of "believe it or not" fame.

My reference to the reward was made against my recollection of Kronk being a former bounty hunter.

 

[Ripley007]

No. But if a person's hands are not tied, they will use their hands to remove anything that is obstructing their ability to breathe. And if a person intended to commit murder by suffocation, they would certainly think to use the tape in a manner that would be most hard to remove if their victim had the freedom of their hands, as Caylee had. In my mind, that means the murderer would wrap tape entirely arround the head versus using a short strip of tape that, obviously, would be much easier for their intended victim to remove. Even more non sensical to me is thinking that after a short strip of tape was applied, the alleged murderer then reached for a heart sticker.

Given the case facts, I can't see how these short pieces duct tape can prove premeditation, and the fact that the cause of death is also not known makes it impossible to prove the tape was the instrument of death. However, I can envision short pieces of duct tape being used to prevent leakage, such as pool water.

I agree with lots you posted. I too never thought of Caylee's death as pre-medititated more than the few seconds preceeding it, which therefore makes it premeditated.....and 1st degree. Personally, I think Caylee was killed by KC's DISPLACED rage. My own personal beliefs revolve around KC and Cindy having a plot to to kill GA during the parents vacay week. When CA failed to go through with it, KC was enraged and that's what she and CA fought about Father's Day. I KNOW, I KNOW, I'm a far out thinker, and most don't see it this way....whatever...it's all speculation at this point any way.

 

[Ripley007]

(tip of my hat)

My apologies for the confusion. I was referring to the Ripley of "believe it or not" fame.

My reference to the reward was made against my recollection of Kronk being a former bounty hunter.

AHHHH. Ok. Sorry to make your statement sound confussed. :crazy:

 

[lin]

I'm trying to catch up with the thread and have noticed a couple of misunderstandings of Florida law posted. Just in case correction hasn't been made yet:

KC was indicted for 1st degree murder. Under Florida law, 2nd degree murder is a Less Included Offense. (LIO). Therefore, 2nd degree murder and all other LIO's have been on the table since the day KC was indicted. Please see other posts in this thread here and here for more specific information on LIO's.

Although KC was not specifically charged with Felony Murder, she may be convicted of felony murder, even though it is not a specific LIO. This is per Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976) and cited in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions. Our own AZLawyer, Themis and others have reviewed Knight and agreed that the jury may be instructed on felony murder although it is not listed in the indictment in the Legal Procedures thread, see Themis' posts here and continuing on page 27, here.

Neither felony murder nor 2nd degree murder require premeditation to be proven. However, wanted to clear up the misunderstandings of Florida law.

 

[lin]

She can't diagnose suffocation from just bones. So, she can't opine in a report, either way. That's why there is no specific COD.

But, I think some months ago we read that she wrote an informal separate paper re: what she thought happened. If so, it has not been released.

Don't know whether she will opine in court, or just stick to what she can prove.

Here's the question: How did she come up with "homicide" as the COD, when there was no bone pathology? She must have seen or deduced something that brought her to that conclusion. I hope it comes out in court!

However, the tape is damning, because of the Huck precident.

I suspect she'll be asked for her opinion and will give it.

 

[Wudge]

Here is a little more on Cameron brown from a juror,which goes to what we are talking about:

"Nobody thought he was not guilty," said Dreskin, a doctor who works for Kaiser Permanente. "It was primarily a decision between if there was intent or not, not the method of the fall, the mechanism of the fall, as important as those things were, it wasn't the final sticking point. It was this question of intent."

Remember jurors are given specific instructions and so they have to deliberate the way they are told. This brings us back to the question as to whether there is enough to support Murder 1. so that a jury can convict on it.

My understanding from a private source is that none of the jurors supported murder one, which, if true, means that they believe he did not 'intend to murder' Laureen. The take I have is that the jury hung on whether or not there was an 'intent to harm' Laureen. If the issue on intent is indeed that way, that's a murder two issue.

In any event, take note that the jury foreman was a doctor. They are not known for being quick to convict, They reason closely and usually are good jury guides -- though that was not true not for Gregory Jackson in Scott Peterson's trial.

I doubt prosecutors would let a doctor be seated on the jury in Casey's trial.

 

[lin]

She was charged wth 1st degree murder before they found Caylee's body.

I'm more concerned about how the state is going to prove the cruel aggravating child abuse than I am how they are going to prove premeditation.

Searches on a computer were enough to establish premeditation for Justin Barber, also from Florida. He was sentenced to death.

Barber's 1st degree murder conviction was affirmed on appeal. But, the court ruled that the state did not prove the cruel circumstances of Barber's wife's death (that the wife died painfully). So he is serving life.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:urntz5yAsM8J:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/app/app5_1_2009/5D06-3529.pdf+%22Barber+v+state%22+Florida+appeal&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNGaqExopC3-OZFXkxiY-Zf04024qA

I think that's going to be proven similar to [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4232259&postcount=351]this excellent post[/ame] you wrote in the Evidence thread and that I subsequently plastered all over the forum. Duct tape, trunk placement and possible bagging of a live Caylee.

 

[celticthyme]

No. But if a person's hands are not tied, they will use their hands to remove anything that is obstructing their ability to breathe. And if a person intended to commit murder by suffocation, they would certainly think to use the tape in a manner that would be most hard to remove if their victim had the freedom of their hands, as Caylee had. In my mind, that means the murderer would wrap tape entirely arround the head versus using a short strip of tape that, obviously, would be much easier for their intended victim to remove. Even more non sensical to me is thinking that after a short strip of tape was applied, the alleged murderer then reached for a heart sticker.

Given the case facts, I can't see how these short pieces duct tape can prove premeditation, and the fact that the cause of death is also not known makes it impossible to prove the tape was the instrument of death. However, I can envision short pieces of duct tape being used to prevent leakage, such as pool water.

Above BBM
At this point, we do not know for certain , among other things
1 . . if she was bound ( hands or feet)
2 . . if she had been drugged ( we do not have all the forensic results yet, and hair may provide us more info)

 

[celticthyme]

If she had been drugged, cholorformed, but alive and taped of course she couldn't fight the tape being applied, but it would definitely premeditated

For them to claim some kind of accident, Casey would have to take the stand, and up until now, she's not talking. That would mean she would have to admit to some kind of guilt, and personally, if JB is running the show, I just can't see that duo doing that ( incompetent counsel notwithstanding)

 

[lin]

Yep! And we don't know for sure that the tape was the COD, in this instance, either.

But, the jury is going to need an explanation for the tape. The defense had better give them one they can accept.

Since the coroner really had almost nothing to work with, I think it was the other forensic and the behavioral that led the state to file murder charges. So, there may be additional evidence that we haven't seen. And, what we have seen is damning-- I won't go into it for fear of staring an OT. ;-)

We don't know for sure the tape is the COD but the jury may draw that reasonable inference. Without KC's testimony to a different excuse, I don't see how one could even be submitted. Oh wouldn't the cross be fun??

Sure, the defense could ask different experts, 'Is it possible that it was abc?' But without anything to back up the abc, the jury will have to disregard it. Just as an extreme example, the defense could ask the expert, 'Is it possible that space aliens put the industrial strength duct tape on Caylee?' But without any evidence to support the invention of space aliens, it's not a viable theory.

That "no evidence" thing, as you and others have pointed out, can cut both ways. There is no evidence that Caylee was anywhere near the pool prior to death and there is more and more evidence and/or lack of evidence developing to prove she wasn't. (Witness JT; lack of pool chemical traces found; etc.) Similarly, there is no evidence to support the 'protrusion' theory that was suggested by some. KC would have to get up and testify to that, imo. Same with the leakage of bodily fluids suggested by some others, imo. The only evidence we have goes against that theory, imo.

 

[marspiter]

My understanding from a private source is that none of the jurors supported murder one, which, if true, means that they believe he did not 'intend to murder' Laureen. The take I have is that the jury hung on whether or not there was an 'intent to harm' Laureen. If the issue on intent is indeed that way, that's a murder two issue.

In any event, take note that the jury foreman was a doctor. They are not known for being quick to convict, They reason closely and usually are good jury guides -- though that was not true not for Gregory Jackson in Scott Peterson's trial.

I doubt prosecutors would let a doctor be seated on the jury in Casey's trial.

What I'm about to ask is OT but I've always wondered this about Doctors. Maybe you can answer this Wudge. JBean and Mods I'm sorry for the OT but I wanted to ask since it was kinda brought up with doctors on juries.

Can a doctor morally and ethically sit on a jury that is going to be DP qualified? The reason I ask is because of the oath a doctor takes. I know in the corrections system they have to use paramedics to carry out the death sentence because Doctors can't, do to the Hippocratic oath. Now they can be brought in to declare the person dead but they can't actually administer the potassium and other drugs into the needle.

Knowing that I always wondered if they could hand down a verdict for death if they sat on a DP jury.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Above BBM
At this point, we do not know for certain , among other things
1 . . if she was bound ( hands or feet)
2 . . if she had been drugged ( we do not have all the forensic results yet, and hair may provide us more info)

BBM......IF the JT sighting of KC with a small bag at Walmart turned out to be medication that would cause drowsiness....that would be key. But let's not forget that there was likely childrens medication in the house...even adult medication such as cold medicine etc........enough of that in a sippy with juice could render a toddler incapacitated and unable to remove duct tape. Let's also remember that that tape was stuck to her hair. Even IF she tried to remove it, the pulling on her scalp from the hair being stuck could cause panic and suffocation.

 

[lin]

And that tells me a lot. I know some posters here hold a very dim view of the SA (in general, and one wonders if they think a SA serves a good and useful function at all, but I digress.......) ......however, I don't think they filed those charges cavalierly. They know what they're doing, and they know the case they have.

ITA. Just reading the pleadings filed by the state convinces me these are very experienced, intelligent individuals that don't take their job lightly.

 

[Ripley007]

Even IF Caylee "acciedently" drowned in the pool while KC was either online or texting or phoning.....WHY wouldn't the stupid B****admit it so we could all sympathis with her and she would not put herself and her family through the ordeal of a DP murder case?????????????????????????????I know the girl is dumber than a box of rocks, but REALLY, could she be SO dumb as to risk the DP? At this point, WHY NOT just tell the truth if it was a terrible tragic acciedent? I think she hasn't spoken up at this point, cause there is NO acceidental "story" to tell. Caylee was MURDERED. End of story.

 

[lin]

But, she was charged with first degree before they found Caylee and knew about the duct tape.

Back to your excellent reasoning in the evidence thread and Dr. Haskell's report, imo.