Should SA seek to prove that "the murder was committed for pecuniary gain"?

Should SA add #5 aggravating Factor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 11.8%

  • No

    Votes: 118 77.1%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 17 11.1%
  • Total voters
    153

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manatee

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
-1
My thoughts are that SA may want to use #5 aggravating factor in order to bring in the evidence that KC sold photos to ABC . This way they can allow the jury to decide if it should count or not.
What do you all opine? lawyers? what are your thoughts?

Here is aggravating factor #5 as it reads:
5) The murder was committed for pecuniary gain or pursuant to an agreement that the defendant would receive something of value
 
Not in relation to the photos. If Casey is the guilty party and the murder was committed on or about June 16th. she had no way of knowing there would be future financial gain from selling Caylee's photos.
 
I agree with strach304. I do not feel the murder was committed with the intent or even the thought of financial gain but rather the finacial gain was a happy (from Casey's persective) additional side effect.

# 5 refers to that being a part of the original murder and a contributing factor in the decision making to commit it.

I just don't see it as being a factor in her actions.
 
strach304 said:
Not in relation to the photos. If Casey is the guilty party and the murder was committed on or about June 16th. she had no way of knowing there would be future financial gain from selling Caylee's photos.
Click to expand...

I agree.

No way did Inmate Anthony know her murdered child would bring that kind of money to her or that she would even have to defend herself against filicide.

In her mind, I believe she just thought the police would take her word on things. I can't imagine why she didn't think LE would check into her statements, look for this imaginanny...or that lying to police was a crime..

No, this doesn't fit, IMO..

Justice for Caylee
 
strach304 said:
Not in relation to the photos. If Casey is the guilty party and the murder was committed on or about June 16th. she had no way of knowing there would be future financial gain from selling Caylee's photos.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they could prove it. I'm only suggesting that this may be a way to bring in the fact that she sold photos into evidence...even if the jury does not agree at the end that #5 was one of the aggravating factors
 
I do think that the sale of the pics/videos is something that should be made known to the jury. The sale was said to have been made during the time that Casey was out on bail. That was BEFORE she was indicted in the death of Caylee.

But I don't think that this can be used to show "the murder was committed for pecuniary gain."
 
I think it is extremely interesting that the SA didn't rule out financial gain as one of the aggravators. IMO there is no way that the sale of the pictures and videos can be used to prove this. If the State uses financial gain, there must be another reason, another possible source of financial gain for Casey if Caylee were to die.
 
I had a different thought about pecuniary gain ... more as a loss ... KC couldn't even support herself without stealing, and Caylee was an additional "expense" ... also KC parents spent a lot of money on Caylee that was previously available to her ... the other thing that sticks in my mind with KC going with the kidnapping story is maybe she intended to try to extort money from her parents but was found before she had figured out how she was going to do that ... just throwing it out there but wondering if pecuniary gain can be looked at from a standpoint of saving the defendent money and removing a financial burden .... JMO
 
Sun said:
I do think that the sale of the pics/videos is something that should be made known to the jury. The sale was said to have been made during the time that Casey was out on bail. That was BEFORE she was indicted in the death of Caylee.

But I don't think that this can be used to show "the murder was committed for pecuniary gain."
Click to expand...

I agree it should be known to the jury,but only as a factor of what her
actions were and mindset was during the period of time the child was
"supposedly missing" In my opinion it shows Casey knew Caylee was dead
and that she would need monies for an atty.The murderer of the child would
be the only one who knew Caylee would not be coming home and that funds
would be needed for an atty. Without this money,JB would not have remained
her atty. She would have gotten a court appointed atty,and we would not
be here discussing this case today.
 
steadychick said:
I think it is extremely interesting that the SA didn't rule out financial gain as one of the aggravators. IMO there is no way that the sale of the pictures and videos can be used to prove this. If the State uses financial gain, there must be another reason, another possible source of financial gain for Casey if Caylee were to die.
Click to expand...

Insurance policy,maybe???????????
 
denjet said:
I had a different thought about pecuniary gain ... more as a loss ... KC couldn't even support herself without stealing, and Caylee was an additional "expense" ... also KC parents spent a lot of money on Caylee that was previously available to her ... the other thing that sticks in my mind with KC going with the kidnapping story is maybe she intended to try to extort money from her parents but was found before she had figured out how she was going to do that ... just throwing it out there but wondering if pecuniary gain can be looked at from a standpoint of saving the defendent money and removing a financial burden .... JMO
Click to expand...

Great points!
Also...did the computer forensics not show that KC searched for missing children BEFORE Caylee went "missing'? Do we know for sure there was no life insurance on Caylee?
 
To collect insurance, you have to have a death certificate I do believe.
 
steadychick said:
I think it is extremely interesting that the SA didn't rule out financial gain as one of the aggravators. IMO there is no way that the sale of the pictures and videos can be used to prove this. If the State uses financial gain, there must be another reason, another possible source of financial gain for Casey if Caylee were to die.
Click to expand...

Me too! This is what led me to not rule out. Also the timing of the DP coming in? They can contend that she searched for missing children. found out all the notoriety and publicity gained. Put two and two together...had the Zanny the nanny plan. She waited just to make sure Zanny would be harder to track. Only failed when she didn't think the police would NOT BELIEVE her!
 
lisalei321 said:
To collect insurance, you have to have a death certificate I do believe.
Click to expand...

Casey,as the parent of the child,would have eventually been given a death
certificate,even if her reamins were not found.She would have been presumed
dead.

She still would have benefitted if there was a policy I think.:waitasec:
 
technicalconfusion said:
Yes, but you (or someone) has to pay for that policy.
Click to expand...

I agree, I assume because Casey never paid for anything in her life,that
Cindy would have been paying for the policy,and may have listed Casey
as beneficiary (at the time of birth,a generous gift to her,pymts were
probably minimal) JMO
 
The only way I could buy #5 applying to Prisoner/Casey is if there was money that in trust througha relative or from her parents and she was informed or feared that she was being cut out in favor of Caylee.

If the A's had money tucked away or intended to cut Prisoner out due to conflicts over Caylee and instead have little Caylee be beneficiary instead, then I could se the money as motive angle applying. I realize the A's are broke now after supposedly funneling all their money into casey's defense and searches for Caylee but if they had money or means prior to all this, that could loosely be considered a financial motive.

But that would be hard to proof and would require cooperation from the A family which ain't gonna happen til hell freezes over.
 
Maybe the SA could use the factor of her selling the videos for gain because I know if it were my child missing and I truly wanted her found I would have GIVEN the videos and pictures to as many news outlets as possible to get my child's face out there. If I were on the jury that is how I would look at it. Why did she SELL them instead of giving them for free.
 
manatee said:
I'm not saying that they could prove it. I'm only suggesting that this may be a way to bring in the fact that she sold photos into evidence...even if the jury does not agree at the end that #5 was one of the aggravating factors
Click to expand...

think the only way to process that one thru would be if ga & ca were killed along with Caylee and kc inherited everything....but as for the ABC money and whatnot---that was an added plus for the defense---

(I also think jb should be thankful for the SA bringing along his "team"---at least it kinda levels the playing scene---
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 4,022 (members: 141, guests: 3,881)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
3,881
Total visitors
4,022
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,124
Messages
17,963,587
Members
228,689
Latest member
Melladanielle
Back
Top