It’s possible, sure. What evidence is there?
Regards,
Shodan
No evidence is required to show that a boyfriend committed homicide, because no such person has been charged. The evidence of coverup has resulted in a conviction.
Homicide doesn’t mean murder. The available evidence also included that this was a tiny child, completely dependent on her custodians to survive any illness, accident or foul play or harm she could bring on herself. If she died of influenza because nobody took her to a doctor that negligence could be ruled a homicide even though the cause of death was the flu. If you have a tiny child dead by the side of the road there has to be someone else in some way responsible for them winding up there so its a homicide - the coroner’s way of saying “I don’t know exactly how she died but it couldn’t have happened without the involvement or negligence of another person” that is a far cry from evidence of murder.
Failure to be shown a conclusive cause of death has been cited as the number one reason the jurors had doubt. They were there and I wasn’t but from what I’ve heard and read I believe there was never a conclusive cause of death presented.
None, but there doesn’t have to be. He isn’t on trial.
But we know that Anthony was a habitual liar. She lied about things she didn’t even have to lie about. Ironically, this means her lies aren’t evidence of guilt.
Like her own lawyer said, she is a slut and a liar. But that doesn’t make her a murderer.
Didn’t know about that. Do you know what reasons the expert gave for this conclusion?
Isn’t there still the problem that even if you conclude some minimum level of homicide has occurred, who did it isn’t exactly clear?
IIRC, it was that skin would’ve very probably attached to the duct tape unless the tape had been stuck on after decomposition had set in. Spitz, was it?
Did the prosecution have an expert testifying that the duct tape was (or could have been) attached prior to death?
Its the rule against stacking inferences, which all debaters should be aware of.
It is fair to infer that because of Casey’s behavior, she had something to hide. But we can not further draw an inference based on the previous inference. Stack inferences far enough and you can prove the sun is made of ice. (Maybe. I’m not trying to prove that can logically get done by ignoring this rule, jsut an illustration.)
Not as a matter of law they do not. There still is no burden on the defense. However, the prosecution of course can remark on it. This isn’t an issue of a shifting burden of proof, but of trial strategy.
Yes, but it is rebuttable. It does not establish conclusive proof. The guy standing next to the window might be a cop who chased the criminal who got away in a helicopter and then ran over to the window to see what had been done, and that is an entirely plausible scenario. When I was lectured the professor was sure to point this out in res ipsa loquitur discussion.
But in this case without it you will wind up having to stack inferences in order to conclude that a form of homicide occured.
And it still would have been up to the jury’s judgment.
What if you dash in and see no one at the window but when you turn to leave someone else dashes in and sees you?
Really?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/18/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html
The jury heard this testimony.
There was testimony that a “heart shaped” sticker may have been on the duct tape at one time.
Can the jury infer that whoever wrapped the skull with tape might have had tender feelings for the deceased?
To me, this only helps the defense. A cold hearted sociopath wouldn’t have feelings for the deceased. Someone who could do what the prosecution claimed and never even show an inkling of remorse or even concern over 31 days just doesn’t care enough about the victim to put a heart on the tape unless it’s some kind of irony.
Now, someone who is disposing of a loved one who accidentally drowned and didn’t want the jawbone dropping off when disposing of the body as Dr. Spitz suggested very well might put the sticker on as well. Still doesn’t fit the defendant very well but it fits better than it would for the murdering Casey.
Right. I was thinking along the lines of a possible manslaughter related charge (a drug assisted baby sitting attempt gone wrong).
Also, would “accessory after the fact” have to be included as another [seperate] charge, or could Casey, assuming she helped bury the corpse (and not reporting it to the authorities), have been convicted based on the charges that were actually filed against her?
I think they are evidence of guilt. But guilt of what crime? Negligence? Definitely lying to the police or obstruction or whatever the charge was called. This is the question, what crime?
I’d have convicted of neglect IF it were a lesser included of Murder, but I’m thinking at least in her jurisdiction it isn’t considered lesser included. If it isn’t and it wasn’t charged, and I were the prosecutor and I still had time, I would seriously consider that I file neglect charges against Anthony.
If they believe it is a fact that the sticker was there, then yes, this is a reasonable inference. But the inferences have to stop there. You may not then infer a further fact from the inference that someone who loved Caylee put the sticker on.
Can you give a cite for this injunction against stacking inferences?
I understand the argument that stacked inferences should often be avoided. What I’m asking for is a citation for the idea that it’s an explicitly formulated rule that is supposed to apply in certain legal contexts, and particularly, that the rule applies to juries.