Additionally, the fact that she didn’t report her daughter missing for 31 days, her behavior after the death before her incarceration, the lies about “kidnappers,” and the fairy tale about accidental drowning were offered as being inconsistent with an innocent person (and/or the facts). Casey’s Mom (who later seemed to clearly change tactics, I believe in the interest of keeping her daughter alive) described the horrible smell from the trunk of Casey’s car, as if a dead body had been in there.
No, not that “it”. My quoted question was in response to the bit about duct-taping the body and moving it: RNATB emphasized that the defense merely suggested that somebody else had done it, and I asked whether – given the lack of prints on the tape – the prosecution had any evidence that it was her rather than someone else.
Still,
Innocent of what? If the kid drowned and – fearing a homicide charge – she covered it up amidst much lying, she’s guilty of something, sure. Which is why she in fact got found guilty of something.
Innocent of killing Caylee. That’s what I meant by inconsistent with the facts. If the kid drowned, why was her face covered with duct tape? That leads us to conclude that the drowning tale was nonsense–and what do we infer from that? There was no accidental drowning, not according to the Medical Examiner. IMO, the evidence in the aggregate forces us to abandon logic to maintain a presumption of innocence.
IANALawyer so if you are and your claim about opening statements is a matter of law, I’ll stand corrected. But in the law classes I attended it was stated that openings and closings were arguments, not evidence, and were to be considered as such. Thus, short of telling lies or, in closing, mis-characterizing the evidence already presented (and subject to objection from the other side), attorneys may claim virtually anything they want without necessity of proof. Juries may compare “spectacular claims” to actual evidence and conclude that the attorney is an ass, or has made unsupported claims, and this may comport badly for the client. But there is no prohibition on presenting speculation, usually couched as alternative theories.
As for the piano, what is the assurance, the proof as it were, that the guy in the window isn’t as innocent as you? Perhaps he was closer (maybe on the floor below, looking out his window) and got there faster than you did. How do you know that there were no other people in the building? Maybe they all snuck out because they couldn’t bear hearing the cacophony.
As for whether or not I mis-spoke regarding evidence of cause of death, perhaps this is simply my opinion based upon incomplete knowledge – I didn’t fixate on this trial and have read relatively little about it. But my recollection says that there was a skull, and there was some duct tape. And forensic examination suggested that duct tape could have been affixed over the mouth that was no longer present, in fact the evidence was “consistent with” tape placed over a mouth, but in point of fact there was no mouth found and no absolute assurance that duct tape had actually been applied over a mouth, whether before or after death. That, and the lack of any other evidence about cause, is the reason the cause of death was listed as “undetermined”.
And boy, I would hate to be convicted of anything based upon my own google searches! Did anybody actually demonstrate that Casey had purchased chloroform, or had it in her utility room, or had access to it at work or something? Because it isn’t a common household chemical to my knowledge, and just looking it up on line is quite a distance from possessing any, and that is itself some distance from using it to cause a fatality. It is though a common component of organic decomposition, which could be of a child’s body or a pack of chicken leftovers. Like so much of the prosecution’s case, the chloroform issue is plausible but not proof. And like the rest of the prosecution’s case, it demonstrates massive over-reach. It was this over-reach, IMHO, that ultimately caused the acquittal.
To stop the decomposing body from falling apart while moving it. Isn’t that what folks testified her family did when moving dead animals? Isn’t that why the defense’s medical expert testified that the tape was applied post-mortem?
Okay, let’s try this: Caylee was killed by a guy that Casey dated. The guy told Casey he’d kill her if she told anyone, so she covered up the murder. Are her actions inconsistent with that scenario?
This is incorrect. The medical examiner could not determine a cause of death, and could not rule out causes of death that would only be determined by soft tissue examination. In other words, decapitation was definitely not the cause, nor was gunshot to the head, but exsanguination, suffocation, pneumonia, heart attack, stroke, bubonic plague, and even drowning could not be ruled out.
I think so. She was going to risk the needle rather than give up this guy we have no evidence of (I know you’re just offering a hypothetical)? That defies belief.
No, you’re wrong. The Medical Examiner indicated a cause of death: homicide. They could not determine the means of homicide, but they did conclude the cause was homicide based on the available evidence.
Actually, for me the hard part to accept is that there is some innocent explanation for a mother lying repeatedly about her daughter’s death. If the circumstances were innocent, she has no reason to lie. If they’re not, there’s every reason. If she was kidnapped, why would you say she drowned (and not report the kidnapping)? If she drowned, why would you say she was kidnapped?
I don’t know if that is enough for first-degree murder, though. Manslaughter, maybe?
FWIW, I don’t think there is real doubt about what happened - Casey either killed her daughter with an accidental overdose of Xanax, or left her locked in the trunk for too long while Casey partied and her daughter smothered. Casey discovered it, panicked, and being an inept sociopath tried a bunch of half-baked lies while she dumped the body somewhere.
Like I have said in another thread, she will drink until she loses her looks and then die homeless. Probably have another kid, but CPS will snatch it away quick enough.
OK, the *cause *was “unknown” not “undetermined”. A distinction without a difference.
The *manner *of death was judged to be homicide, in the opinion of the medical examiner.
These two words are different, and both are important.
Unless members of the jury decide to reveal their deliberations, we will not know whether they agreed or disagreed with the medical examiner on this point. It seems to me that homicide is a very plausible manner of death in this instance, but (again MHO) without an actual cause, I cannot rule out the plausibility of some accident or mischance (like illness). Were I the medical examiner, I’d have chosen homicide myself, on the “that’s what juries are for” premise. And in this case, even had the jury agreed with the medical examiner on this sole point, they still would need to see proof that Casey, and Casey alone, had committed the homicide.
Of course it’s not enough for a first degree murder charge. She was found guilty of the charges they could prove–lying.
As for what really happened, I think it’s possible the boyfriend accidentally killed the girl and Casey lied to protect him. As for your xanax theory, what evidence is there of that?
“If seeing someone accused of a capital crime be acquitted because his/her guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt upsets you, I suggest that you emigrate. Clearly, living in a country with an independent judiciary and a presumption of innocence is not for you. I suggest that you find a repressive nation with a tinpot dictator that rules through fear.”