Incorrect. As regards the alleged disposal -- bags, location and in a car trunk for days -- of Caylee's body by Casey, my point has been and remains that it works against the State's premeditated murder charge, not for it.
I haven't claimed the disposal of Caylee's body represents dispositive evidence that proves Casey did not commit 1st degree murder.
If you believe that prosecutors will use it to support their murder one charge, take a crack at what we might hear a SA tell the jury.
First, I would just say you both could be correct. When it comes to what constitutes enough premeditation, the case law basically leaves it to the trier of fact (jury) if their is some evidence suggesting premeditation. So it sounds like the two of you are having a classic juror debate - not one the case law will settle one way or the other.:waitasec: Ok color me confused.
See it's all this talking in circles that confuses matters. In your words quote me. I never said anything about dis positive evidence.
The basis of what you are trying to argue is that because Casey had no plan for disposal it works against premed. I'm saying that I disagree with that assessment because a clear definitive plan for disposal is not required for premed murder as in the linked case I gave. The woman in that case had ample time to form premed, but the plan to dispose of the body was done in a rush as an after thought to get rid of the evidence after the fact. Much like I think it was in this case.
In fact I would say any plan for disposal helps a premed claim no matter how elaborate or simple. Premed does not require the crime genius of a Professor Moriarty. It can happen in mere moments and the disposal of the body indicates that someone was trying to dispose of the evidence as well. Which to me works against a possible accident theory. Not saying it out right proves an accident theory wrong but, if it were truly an accident Casey is just a poor victim here and would have no need to wrap duct, double plastic bag, use another bag, and dump her body in the woods.
Further more I would say People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458 pretty much proves that circumstantial evidence is more then enough for a conviction. Now right now a G or NG verdict is pure speculation because we are not a jury and this is not a court room. However that being said Casey can be convicted on the evidence currently in view. Whether that conviction would be a wrongful conviction is another matter of opinion.
I would be interested to hear Rhornsby's thoughts on the disposal of Caylee. Given the evidence found in Casey's trunk (hair evidence, dog hits, entomological evidence, napkins with grave wax, ect, ect), the way in which Caylee was disposed of(duct tape, triple bagged) and the forensic evidence indicating the time line in which the body was placed.
SNIP
In your words quote me. I never said anything about dis positive evidence.
SNIP
First, I would just say you both could be correct. When it comes to what constitutes enough premeditation, the case law basically leaves it to the trier of fact (jury) if their is some evidence suggesting premeditation. So it sounds like the two of you are having a classic juror debate - not one the case law will settle one way or the other.
As for the evidence you have mentioned, I think it is very strong circumstantial evidence that suggests guilt of something (interesting fact: DNA is actually circumstantial evidence by definition).
Finally, please don't get me started on the manner in which the body was disposed. I just cannot imagine that it was done alone - I PERSONALLY think someone else had to have assisted. But that is just my PERSONAL intuition.
Question: I am still working to understand why premeditation has to include a pre-plan for the disposal of a body. Will the prosecution be able to bring in testimony about the cheque fraud, theft of grandma's cheques, grandfather's care money, etc as a basis for showing that Casey never thought out the consequences of her actions? Casey seemed to be so much the 10 minute kind of girl who just did what she wanted to do to achieve her "goal" including killing Caylee. Why must we believe she thought about disposal until she had to - i.e. the overwhelming smell. To me her actions of carrying the body around in her trunk until she had to deal with it seems typical of the way she handled everything. Could you please comment and thank you in advance.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Q&A Thread for R Hornsby
Wudge,
Re: above post, If premeditation can happen in the blink of an eye, how does that relate to the disposal of the body? Premeditation that happens in seconds, doesn't necessarily have plans for the disposal of the body. People have acted out without thinking of what will follow. I feel the disposal method, fits her personality to a tee.
First, I would just say you both could be correct. When it comes to what constitutes enough premeditation, the case law basically leaves it to the trier of fact (jury) if their is some evidence suggesting premeditation. So it sounds like the two of you are having a classic juror debate - not one the case law will settle one way or the other.
As for the evidence you have mentioned, I think it is very strong circumstantial evidence that suggests guilt of something (interesting fact: DNA is actually circumstantial evidence by definition).
Finally, please don't get me started on the manner in which the body was disposed. I just cannot imagine that it was done alone - I PERSONALLY think someone else had to have assisted. But that is just my PERSONAL intuition.
I apologize in advance to those who my blunt language is about to offend, so turn away if you are squeamish.BBM. Sorry for ignoring your request not to get you started...my curiosity is getting the better of my manners. What makes you think someone else assisted? Women have been lugging heavy children around as if they have super human strength for centuries -- so carrying her into the woods would not be physically impossible. Is there something else that makes you think she had help?
The only thing prominent about me is the rate at which I am going bald...(chuckle)
I've been waiting for the day when someone of prominence would suggest this.
(Say it ain't so Joe.)
I apologize in advance to those who my blunt language is about to offend, so turn away if you are squeamish.
Forensically, her car was fairly clean. There seems to be a complete lack of fingerprint evidence that should still be available (home test: go tear off a piece of duct tape and
see how often and firmly your fingers touch the tape side).
And lets talk superhuman strength, imagine a dead limp body. It cannot be easy to maneuver and even harder to get inside a small bag. And based on the evidence, when she finally disposed of the body it was already decaying, which means there would have been bodily fluid. Someone was bright enough to either think in advance, or get the original laundry bag into black plastic bags - that takes two people.
Okay, I got started and i am finished because i just know someone helped her - someone with law enforcement experience is my guess.
And lets talk superhuman strength, imagine a dead limp body. It cannot be easy to maneuver and even harder to get inside a small bag. And based on the evidence, when she finally disposed of the body it was already decaying, which means there would have been bodily fluid. Someone was bright enough to either think in advance, or get the original laundry bag into black plastic bags - that takes two people.
Okay, I got started and i am finished because i just know someone helped her - someone with law enforcement experience is my guess.
Meh...I respect your opinion, but
I'm a 5'7" 120lb woman and I've done all sorts of things involving couches, pianos, drunk friends (who were also leaking fluids), etc. Nothing superhuman about it, IMO. Only takes determination, and I think the motivation to hide a dead body would be pretty fortifying.
And Caylee was tiny.
JMO
The only thing prominent about me is the rate at which I am going bald...