Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

[JohnVaughanCauthen]

Chloroform is a new high tech way to get high and have sex. She might have wondered if it was safe. Along with partying, and internet visits to inumerable escort sites, that means she was working as a hooker; she was involved with organized crime.

 

[K9 5er]

After following this case for 5 months, based on everything I've heard or read, I feel Caylee died while in her mother's care. The only question remaining in my mind is if it was premeditated or accidental (which was followed by a panicked cover up); and with that I sway back and forth.

 

[Where's Andre]

I have to see all the evidence presented first I am keeping an open mind til the end so I can base my decision 100% on the trial.
ok maybe it's not 100% open :innocent: but I am going to try.

I'm with JB here. Without knowing all the evidence both sides have or how it will be presented, I think it's a mistake to guess whether doubt will cross the threshold of reasonable.

That said, it's a mistake to expect absolute perfection from LE and procecutors, with defense mearly pointing out these imperfections. Defense should offer a reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence.

Defense has been promising that they have quite a story to tell, but can't say anything until the trial. I say let them tell it, and we'll see if it's any more "perfect" than the LE version.

I hope it isn't a "LE isn't perfect, so SODDI or SONDI" defense. I stuggle with calling these even defenses, more ploys to manipulate jurys-- who aren't perfect either.

 

[wallflower67]

if she sticks with the zanny defense I belive she'll be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

if she changes her story....yet again...the jurers may not buy that since she has lied so many times. So even if she says accident, she has a history of lying about what happened.

 

[JohnVaughanCauthen]

What if Casey was involved with organized crime? Nobody has reported that. Her lawyers aren't talking about it. Was she doing that partying just for fun, to satisfy her hormones? In that case she did murder Caylee because Caylee got in the way of some very strong hormones.

But no woman has those kinds of hormones. It was her job to party. And she told police she was willing to provide Caylee with another home: willing to, in order to satisfy whom?

 

[Devon]

After following this case for 5 months, based on everything I've heard or read, I feel Caylee died while in her mother's care. The only question remaining in my mind is if it was premeditated or accidental (which was followed by a panicked cover up); and with that I sway back and forth.

I agree, and IMO the evidence and facts available to us so far just tell part of the story and so must be appraised accordingly.

 

[DotsEyes]

The State can prove that Caylee was unaccounted for during a period of 31 days before LE was notified. They will show how KC spent those days through the testimony of friends, family, photos, videos and the jury will see a woman who is not the least concerned about her child. The State will tell the jury about KC's lies and the wild goose chases she promoted beginning the night that CA called 911. The jury will see the jailhouse videos where she laughs and giggles and refuses to tell anyone anything except more ridiculous, complicated and convoluted lies. This evidence will have a great impact on the jury.

The State will show that KC had Caylee's body secreted in her trunk and apparently drove around for a few days with the baby's body rotting in a garbage bag as she partied it up with her new beau and his friends. They will see the Blockbuster video taken only hours after Caylee's death. The jury will have no problem deciding that KC knew the baby was dead in her trunk and that her dead baby didn't interfere with her enjoyment of life.

Then the State will show the site where Caylee was dumped which is a 3 minute walk at most from the A home. They will show that KC had no emotion whatsoever as searches were taking place all over Orlando but fell to her knees and needed a sedative when she learned of the search find in the swamp behind her neighborhood. The jig was up. The jury will catch on to that too.

IF there is no way to establish the COD, the jury will be tasked to determine if the State has proven that KC intentionally killed Caylee. For Baez to try the "someone else did it and KC was scared to tell", he must convince the jury that she is still so scared that she will not talk and would rather go to jail for life or even death row. Or he must try to convince the jury that it was an accident covered up by a panicked young mother. The problem here is that the body was in her car and any fear for her daughter's safety was moot and she has yet to describe the accident and her response to it. Neither of these scenarios establish "reasonable doubt".

It is not reasonable to believe in a phantom Nanny any more than it is reasonable to believe that Caylee committed suicide. It is not reasonable to to believe that it was an accident without any evidence of same from the mother's own mouth and she will never admit to anything.

The jury may have to deal with the fact that no one knows exactly how Caylee was killed, but there will be no doubt that the mother knew about it and went to elaborate means to keep the facts hidden from everyone. Jurors do not leave their logic and common sense at the courthouse steps and their combined years of living experiences will lead them to a murder 1 conviction.

It is KC's own fault. She could have claimed accidental death from DAY 1, but chose another route. Why? Because the evidence at the time showed that it was not an accident at all. She was just plain lucky that the body was not found until it was reduced to scattered bones and we do not reward those who manage to hide their crimes well and long enough to destroy evidence.

I have no wiggle room here, she will be found guilty of murder 1 and will get a LWOP or DP. She did it and will see the harsh reality of justice.

 

[ClockWatcher]

The State can prove that Caylee was unaccounted for during a period of 31 days before LE was notified. They will show how KC spent those days through the testimony of friends, family, photos, videos and the jury will see a woman who is not the least concerned about her child. The State will tell the jury about KC's lies and the wild goose chases she promoted beginning the night that CA called 911. The jury will see the jailhouse videos where she laughs and giggles and refuses to tell anyone anything except more ridiculous, complicated and convoluted lies. This evidence will have a great impact on the jury.

The State will show that KC had Caylee's body secreted in her trunk and apparently drove around for a few days with the baby's body rotting in a garbage bag as she partied it up with her new beau and his friends. They will see the Blockbuster video taken only hours after Caylee's death. The jury will have no problem deciding that KC knew the baby was dead in her trunk and that her dead baby didn't interfere with her enjoyment of life.

Then the State will show the site where Caylee was dumped which is a 3 minute walk at most from the A home. They will show that KC had no emotion whatsoever as searches were taking place all over Orlando but fell to her knees and needed a sedative when she learned of the search find in the swamp behind her neighborhood. The jig was up. The jury will catch on to that too.

IF there is no way to establish the COD, the jury will be tasked to determine if the State has proven that KC intentionally killed Caylee. For Baez to try the "someone else did it and KC was scared to tell", he must convince the jury that she is still so scared that she will not talk and would rather go to jail for life or even death row. Or he must try to convince the jury that it was an accident covered up by a panicked young mother. The problem here is that the body was in her car and any fear for her daughter's safety was moot and she has yet to describe the accident and her response to it. Neither of these scenarios establish "reasonable doubt".

It is not reasonable to believe in a phantom Nanny any more than it is reasonable to believe that Caylee committed suicide. It is not reasonable to to believe that it was an accident without any evidence of same from the mother's own mouth and she will never admit to anything.

The jury may have to deal with the fact that no one knows exactly how Caylee was killed, but there will be no doubt that the mother knew about it and went to elaborate means to keep the facts hidden from everyone. Jurors do not leave their logic and common sense at the courthouse steps and their combined years of living experiences will lead them to a murder 1 conviction.

It is KC's own fault. She could have claimed accidental death from DAY 1, but chose another route. Why? Because the evidence at the time showed that it was not an accident at all. She was just plain lucky that the body was not found until it was reduced to scattered bones and we do not reward those who manage to hide their crimes well and long enough to destroy evidence.

I have no wiggle room here, she will be found guilty of murder 1 and will get a LWOP or DP. She did it and will see the harsh reality of justice.

Outstanding post! Thank you Dot for eloquently stating and reminding us all of the simple facts of this case. Well done.

 

[CentralFLMama]

So what is it that you believe can be proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt'

"It" being the fact that she (Casey) is responsible for the death of Caylee, one way or another. Sorry - I should have been more clear on that!

 

[JohnVaughanCauthen]

"They will show how KC spent those 31 days, through the testimony of friends, family, photos."

Casey wishes they would prove what she did in that 31 days. It will not show her partying, but in conflict with the people she was employed by, who had disappeared with Caylee. The prosecution will not show what she did in those 31 days. That will be an odd ommission by the prosecution.

...apparently she drove around for a few days with the baby's body rotting in a garbage bag as she partied it up with her new beau and his friends [who like to party with a woman who smells like death]...

...the State will show the site where Caylee was dumped which is a 3 minute walk at most from the A home [after Casey drove for days with the body in the trunk]...

 

[Devon]

"It" being the fact that she (Casey) is responsible for the death of Caylee, one way or another. Sorry - I should have been more clear on that!

Okay, thanks....I respect everyone's opinion, I was just trying to get clarity on yours.

 

[evergreen]

my feeling is that there will be one or more jurors who don't see it that way but think she is guilty of a lesser offense such as Manslaughter. wish that wasn't the case but you might say I am student of history...

 

[suspicious1]

The State can prove that Caylee was unaccounted for during a period of 31 days before LE was notified. They will show how KC spent those days through the testimony of friends, family, photos, videos and the jury will see a woman who is not the least concerned about her child. The State will tell the jury about KC's lies and the wild goose chases she promoted beginning the night that CA called 911. The jury will see the jailhouse videos where she laughs and giggles and refuses to tell anyone anything except more ridiculous, complicated and convoluted lies. This evidence will have a great impact on the jury.

The State will show that KC had Caylee's body secreted in her trunk and apparently drove around for a few days with the baby's body rotting in a garbage bag as she partied it up with her new beau and his friends. They will see the Blockbuster video taken only hours after Caylee's death. The jury will have no problem deciding that KC knew the baby was dead in her trunk and that her dead baby didn't interfere with her enjoyment of life.

Then the State will show the site where Caylee was dumped which is a 3 minute walk at most from the A home. They will show that KC had no emotion whatsoever as searches were taking place all over Orlando but fell to her knees and needed a sedative when she learned of the search find in the swamp behind her neighborhood. The jig was up. The jury will catch on to that too.

IF there is no way to establish the COD, the jury will be tasked to determine if the State has proven that KC intentionally killed Caylee. For Baez to try the "someone else did it and KC was scared to tell", he must convince the jury that she is still so scared that she will not talk and would rather go to jail for life or even death row. Or he must try to convince the jury that it was an accident covered up by a panicked young mother. The problem here is that the body was in her car and any fear for her daughter's safety was moot and she has yet to describe the accident and her response to it. Neither of these scenarios establish "reasonable doubt".

It is not reasonable to believe in a phantom Nanny any more than it is reasonable to believe that Caylee committed suicide. It is not reasonable to to believe that it was an accident without any evidence of same from the mother's own mouth and she will never admit to anything.

The jury may have to deal with the fact that no one knows exactly how Caylee was killed, but there will be no doubt that the mother knew about it and went to elaborate means to keep the facts hidden from everyone. Jurors do not leave their logic and common sense at the courthouse steps and their combined years of living experiences will lead them to a murder 1 conviction.

It is KC's own fault. She could have claimed accidental death from DAY 1, but chose another route. Why? Because the evidence at the time showed that it was not an accident at all. She was just plain lucky that the body was not found until it was reduced to scattered bones and we do not reward those who manage to hide their crimes well and long enough to destroy evidence.

I have no wiggle room here, she will be found guilty of murder 1 and will get a LWOP or DP. She did it and will see the harsh reality of justice.

That was a job well done. I hope she's never let back into society. EVER!!!!

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

ITA with Doteyes.
Obviously, right now the defense and all its "experts" are thumping their chests regarding reasonable doubt.
I agree if they went to trial tomorrow, based only what they have right now, the SAO would have it tough. I feel they would prevail tho. Without a doubt.
That being said, WHEN (not if) evidence is released showing the UNDISPUTABLE evidence connecting KC to the dead body ( DNA..prints...items in bag proven to be purchased after her going missing..items in bag direct linked to home)
will be the icing on the cake.
Obviously the car proves to us a deceased Caylee was in there. But because no chain of evidence is established or available, it is supporting circumstansial evidence unless SAO can prove no one but her ever touched the car...which they can't.

I am so pysched up for a doc dump of addt'l evidence I cannot control myself.

But the evidence is there. Trust me. LE isn't playing games with her.

 

[suspicious1]

ITA with Doteyes.
Obviously, right now the defense and all its "experts" are thumping their chests regarding reasonable doubt.
I agree if they went to trial tomorrow, based only what they have right now, the SAO would have it tough. I feel they would prevail tho. Without a doubt.
That being said, WHEN (not if) evidence is released showing the UNDISPUTABLE evidence connecting KC to the dead body ( DNA..prints...items in bag proven to be purchased after her going missing..items in bag direct linked to home)
will be the icing on the cake.
Obviously the car proves to us a deceased Caylee was in there. But because no chain of evidence is established or available, it is supporting circumstansial evidence unless SAO can prove no one but her ever touched the car...which they can't.

I am so pysched up for a doc dump of addt'l evidence I cannot control myself.

But the evidence is there. Trust me. LE isn't playing games with her.

I am quite sure that LE has evidence that we don't know about as of yet. I cannot wait to find out what it is.

 

[jujube]

Reasonable doubt.. hmm well, the key to that question is if you have two different interpretations of a situation, you must choose the one that goes to Not Guilty. You cannot just say I believe this or that. So much of the information we have is basically from the street, rumors etc. Science is going to make or break this case. If they can lock up all the science and give answers , no problem. If it is going to be based on things like her attitude or internet searches.. I really have to wonder what kind of verdict there will be in the end.
JMVHO

I don't know about science. The jurors in the OJ case had an expert tell them that the DNA found could only belong to 1 in 200 million people and it matched OJ. The total U.S. population was about 250,000,000. Granted there could have been 1 other person in the country with similar DMA markers but that 1 person would have had to have a beef with Nicole and Ron and hate them enough to kill them, yet the jury acquitted. They were more interested in If the glove don't fit,you must acquit.

Depending on the IQ level of the jury, any science better be explained in terms that any idiot can understand.

 

[not_my_kids]

In my opinion, casey is guilty as sin. Beyond all reaonable doubt.
However, I have tried lining this up in my head as time goes by and I don't know if they can prove it in court.

The last proven moment that Caylee was alive was the 15th of June, at the nursing home, with Cindy. That creates doubt.
Caylee was dumped near the house, where Cindy also lives. Reasonable doubt.
The computer searches for Chloroform look bad, but there were also searches for neck breaking and Caylee's neck wasn't broken. Computer is also not limited to access by casey. Reasonable doubt.
casey borrowed a shovel, but returned it without dirt on it. Possibly reasonable doubt, pending further forensics.
Caylee's bones show there was no history of severe abuse. Reasonable doubt.
There was decomp in the trunk of the car, that is not owned and cannot be proven to be solely operated by casey.

To put it mildly, I still don't see LE proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt. casey won't go down for murder one. IMO.

 

[Themis]

There is no "Beyond a SHADOW of a Doubt."

"Beyond a REASONABLE Doubt" is a legal standard of proof. The Judges of the nation have defined it in case law. The standard has been put into judge's manuals for jury instructions. The jury instructions will be given to the jury.

Statements like "concrete proof" "beyond all doubt" "beyond a shadow of a doubt" "no evidence" "no solid evidence" are confusing and fuel unnecessary polarization of opinions. The question is, will the proof presented at trial convince a jury of 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. REASONABLE -- not any pie-in-the-sky theory.

Just my commentary for the day.

 

[gardenhart]

Reasonable doubt.. hmm well, the key to that question is if you have two different interpretations of a situation, you must choose the one that goes to Not Guilty. You cannot just say I believe this or that. So much of the information we have is basically from the street, rumors etc. Science is going to make or break this case. If they can lock up all the science and give answers , no problem. If it is going to be based on things like her attitude or internet searches.. I really have to wonder what kind of verdict there will be in the end.
JMVHO

Reasonable doubt doesn't mean with no doubt, without a shadow of a doubt. Here's the definition:

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

 

[impatientredhead]

In my opinion, casey is guilty as sin. Beyond all reaonable doubt.
However, I have tried lining this up in my head as time goes by and I don't know if they can prove it in court.

The last proven moment that Caylee was alive was the 15th of June, at the nursing home, with Cindy. That creates doubt.
Caylee was dumped near the house, where Cindy also lives. Reasonable doubt.
The computer searches for Chloroform look bad, but there were also searches for neck breaking and Caylee's neck wasn't broken. Computer is also not limited to access by casey. Reasonable doubt.
casey borrowed a shovel, but returned it without dirt on it. Possibly reasonable doubt, pending further forensics.
Caylee's bones show there was no history of severe abuse. Reasonable doubt.
There was decomp in the trunk of the car, that is not owned and cannot be proven to be solely operated by casey.

To put it mildly, I still don't see LE proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt. casey won't go down for murder one. IMO.

I don't think they will have any problem reaching the level needed for conviction either.

The jury can get there one of two ways:

A piece of evidence presented that just cannot be explained away, this can be different pieces for different jury members. In this case I would expect it to be Casey's fingerprints embedded in the duct tape and fibers from her trunk embedded in the same tape.

Or they can get there by the totality of the evidence. Yes you can attack each individual piece, challenge the validity of a test, try to impeach each individual witness.... but the Prosecution has a lot of pieces for a REASONABLE juror to go back into that room and dismiss them all.

Not to mention there is no explanation that can be made that explains all of that evidence away by pointing to a nanny.

That being said I think the best reasonable doubt arguement they could create is that Cindy did this and Casey has had a mental breakdown since. I don't think they are going to go that route though.