Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Teresa]

No. In my opinion they have created certainity in my mind. Casey's family is changing their stories in an obvious attempt to protect Casey. Why? Her family knows she is guility and are trying to take some of the 'blame" in an attempt to save her. Her parents have always done this in the past and their doing it again. I don't understand why but it is obvious they are. Maybe this is why this case has touched me so much, Caylee has nobody but the SA and caring folks on her side.

Teresa

 

[Leah0107]

The defense has NOT created any reasonable doubt for me. IMO, there has been nothing compelling in their case one way or the other and I don't anticipate that there will be. Based on the state's case:

I have an deep abiding conviction that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death

However, I waver between premeditated murder and aggravated child abuse resulting in death.

There is evidence that shows it could have been premeditated murder as presented by the state (i.e., computer searches, actions and attitudes following her death), but for me not beyond all reasonable doubt. I lean that way mostly because of her actions following Caylee's death and even to date, but specifically for the 31 days. She was just too calm, cool, and collected IMO for it to have been an unexpected accident. And as I continue to quote 'who cover's up an accident but pretending it's murder.' However, I really don't know. And at this point, I am not sure it's enough for me to say with complete certainty that her death was premeditated.

As for felony murder (aggravated child abuse). In my mind it probably wasn't an accident that lead to death, but again I just don't know.

2nd degree murder, a 1st degree felony punishable by life in prison says:

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Having said that...when I read the statement 'without any premeditated design' my stomach does a flip because I think she may have had, but it's not that deep abiding conviction that she did.

Aggravated manslaughter is also a 1st degree felony

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.or

The language in this statute that gives me trouble is culpable 'negligence' because I think it's more than that.

So...definitely not reasonable doubt of guilt as to murder, but to what degree.

This post probably goes beyond the thread title, mods please move if you deem necessary.

 

[indicat]

No, I do not believe they have created reasonable doubt. Everything they have tried to explain away is not reasonable to me. Dr.G's testimony was very powerful to me and made so much sense. When I got worried yesterday about Cindy's testimony of lies after I thought about it I went back to the jail house tapes, calls, and the 31 days, the fact it was Cindy and not her who finally called 911. She convicted herself. I need no more evidence to ever change my mind that this was all her, only her and no accident.

 

[LancelotLink]

Nope. They squandered all hopes of reasonable doubt with their OS. They promised the jury all that and a bag of chips. The jury expects all that and a bag of chips. All they have so far are buffalo chips.

 

[PennyC]

Because Casey will never admit to any wrong doing and would rather throw everyone else under the bus than to take any blame for any of her actions. I agree that a normal person wouldn't sit in jail for 3 years if it was an accident but a normal person also would have called 911 if it was an accident, but we all know that Casey is not normal. I think what everyone is forgetting is, believing she is guilty and proving that she is are two different things. The jury has rules that they have to follow when coming to a verdict and they will need concrete evidence that she is guilty, they can’t just go on their emotions.

That's why I say Common Sense will make the decision for them. No matter what the defense throws out there the jury will use common sense and logic to make they're decison. Common sense tells me the evidencethe prosecution is showing makes more sense then the evidence or lack of that the defense is throwing out. Tape on mouth, smell in car, no reports of her missing chlorform searches ect put it all together and it proves murder. I don't think the defense have proven anything that supports their theory of events. JMO

 

[GeekyGirl]

That's why I say Common Sense will make the decision for them. No matter what the defense throws out there the jury will use common sense and logic to make they're decison. Common sense tells me the evidencethe prosecution is showing makes more sense then the evidence or lack of that the defense is throwing out. Tape on mouth, smell in car, no reports of her missing chlorform searches ect put it all together and it proves murder. I don't think the defense have proven anything that supports their theory of events. JMO

Respectfully, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. It's not about picking one side's version over the other and it's not an all or nothing scenario. The state is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she is guilty of of the crimes she is charged with, using facts in evidence. I can see where the evidence suggests murder, I would even go so far as to say it's more probable that it was murder, and not manslaughter, but I just can't see where the evidence adds up to murder beyond a reasonable doubt. MOO (Manslaughter, absolutely)

 

[PennyC]

Respectfully, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. It's not about picking one side's version over the other and it's not an all or nothing scenario. The state is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she is guilty of of the crimes she is charged with, using facts in evidence. I can see where the evidence suggests murder, I would even go so far as to say it's more probable that it was murder, and not manslaughter, but I just can't see where the evidence adds up to murder beyond a reasonable doubt. MOO (Manslaughter, absolutely)

Yes that's what the law says but IMO the jury will let common sense override reasonable doubt

 

[RANCH]

I would agree that most people would not attempt to cover up an accident. I don't agree that Casey is most people. I'm not using the word accident in the sense of absolving Casey from responsibility.(Actually, did I even use the word accident?)

What I'm trying to say is that, if the duct tape was applied after Caylee died, then we really don't how she died and it could have been the result of Casey being neglectful, rather than an active intent to abuse her or kill her. A negligent homicide is still a homicide and Casey still would have had reason to cover up the death, since it appears she doesn't like to accept responsibility for anything she does. I'm not buying the defense's story either, just saying that without being sure of the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death, I couldn't say with moral certainty that it was murder versus manslaughter. IMO, Casey's actions after the fact would have been the same in either scenario. MOO

So your saying that the issue for you is that we don't know if the duct tape was placed on Caylee before she died or after? I believe that the evidence shows that it was there before death. I also believe that there is no reason for some one to place duct tape on some one who is already dead.Casey's actions after the fact speak for them selves.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Yes that's what the law says but IMO the jury will let common sense override reasonable doubt

Respectfully, I'm confused by your statement. Are you saying the jury should ignore the law and let "common sense" direct their verdict?

 

[Mohabi]

Reasonable doubt? Let's define "reasonable".

No, the defense has only raised UNreasonable BS.

 

[katydid23]

You know, by circling the wagons, the Anthony's are actually DISPROVING the DT's theory.
Baez said in his opening that the horrid abuse and dysfunction forced Casey to be in denial, and disconnected and fragile. But what we are witnessing is a very tight family unit, coming to her defense. So why would we believe she had no support and was on her own?

 

[GeekyGirl]

So your saying that the issue for you is that we don't know if the duct tape was placed on Caylee before she died or after? I believe that the evidence shows that it was there before death. I also believe that there is no reason for some one to place duct tape on some one who is already dead.Casey's actions after the fact speak for them selves.

IIRC correctly Dr G testified that she couldn't say conclusively that the duct tape was applied prior to death, only that it was applied before decomposition. I've stated my reasoning for why I think it's possible that the duct tape was applied after death many times in this thread (not being snarky, I'm just too tired to type it all out again). It's not that I think Casey is innocent in any way, just that I'm unsure as to whether it was manslaughter or murder. I get where you're coming from, really I do, and I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to give insight as to why my opinion is different, because there could be a juror that thinks like me. Absolutely no disrespect meant.

 

[Starshine28]

Nope. They squandered all hopes of reasonable doubt with their OS. They promised the jury all that and a bag of chips. The jury expects all that and a bag of chips. All they have so far are buffalo chips.

I'm trying to think how jurors reacted to the family's testimony (and not how I think). Sadly, I think Lee's obvious wish-washy responses between the direct and cross examinations coincided well with what Baez stated in the OS. Specifically, Baez said (not verbatim) that this family has a lot of secrets. Although Lee has not said anything to imply sexual abuse, his contradictions definitely can make the jury curious as to just what other secrets he's not telling.

Am I making sense? I felt a sense of doom while listening to his testimony today, because any hint of him keeping/hiding secrets as well as openly stating he was in denial of Caylee's death opens the door to a hint of "truth" to Baez's statements that this family is unique/peculiar.

That in and of itself does not create reasonable doubt, but it can lead jurors to truly consider the sexual abuse allegation...and that George could be the father. I just hope with all the hope I have that the State will flat-out tell the jury in the rebuttal that George is not the father, and that the only reason why they tested it was because they had no clue who the father was...and that it is common in investigations to look at all angles/aspects. If they do not mention that George is not the father, I truly think we'll end with a hung jury (at least).

Fingers crossed...

 

[Starshine28]

Also...I really hope the defense tries to pin the duct tape on Kronk. That will be a hoot to watch, especially because of the scene Baez made in OS, pointing out the duct tape on the gas cans..."follow the duct tape!" If he/they actually try to infer that George simply had duct tape on the garbage bags and that Kronk must have been the one to place the tape on the skull, I think every single individual will see how this assumption is utterly crazy.

I'm actually hesitant to post this, because I fear the defense will read it and then decide not to do it (if they actually were going to do it)...I don't want to prevent the fun theories they may try to paint in the next few days.

 

[katydid23]

Also...I really hope the defense tries to pin the duct tape on Kronk. That will be a hoot to watch, especially because of the scene Baez made in OS, pointing out the duct tape on the gas cans..."follow the duct tape!" If he/they actually try to infer that George simply had duct tape on the garbage bags and that Kronk must have been the one to place the tape on the skull, I think every single individual will see how this assumption is utterly crazy.

I'm actually hesitant to post this, because I fear the defense will read it and then decide not to do it (if they actually were going to do it)...I don't want to prevent the fun theories they may try to paint in the next few days.

But they kind of have to pin the tape on Kronk if they want to stand by their famous expert, Dr Spitz. He takes the tape from being the murder weapon, but he puts it in the hands of someone in the woods after decomposition.

 

[chelle70]

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that there is a fundamental difference in the way that some of us are looking at this. I believe that in a court of law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and it's up to the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the state proved she is guilty of manslaughter, but fell short on the murder charge. So the question for me is now, can the defense provide reasonable doubt that it wasn't manslaughter? No, I don't feel they have. In my mind, it's a false dilemma to say that if the defense's version of the case isn't true, then the state's version must be. MOO

I've read some of your posts over the last few weeks, and I'm sure someone might have already mentioned this. But I think you're looking for a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" rather than a "reasonable doubt". Reasonable = common sense, connecting the dots, reviewing the evidence, putting 2 and 2 together, etc. Oh, and this is said respectfully of course. :banghead:

 

[Curious Me]

But they kind of have to pin the tape on Kronk if they want to stand by their famous expert, Dr Spitz. He takes the tape from being the murder weapon, but he puts it in the hands of someone in the woods after decomposition.

Don't forget the heart shaped sticker being blown by the wind from the school, across the road, into the woods, and landing on the duct tape for awhile.

 

[Kelroy]

I've read some of your posts over the last few weeks, and I'm sure someone might have already mentioned this. But I think you're looking for a "beyond a shadow of a doubt" rather than a "reasonable doubt". Reasonable = common sense, connecting the dots, reviewing the evidence, putting 2 and 2 together, etc. Oh, and this is said respectfully of course. :banghead:

Actually, the jury instructions, according to the "Ask the Judge" column on wesh.com, read:

The Florida standard jury instructions defining reasonable doubt is as follows: Whenever the words reasonable doubt are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence. If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28273974/detail.html#ixzz1QGyXqXGJ

I think it's a bit more complicated than "connect the dots," particularly because the state has a burden of proof. I agree that the most likely scenario, from the evidence presented, is that Casey killed Caylee, but I've gone back and forth between first-degree, second-degree, and manslaughter. In other words, I think she certainly could be guilty of first-degree murder, but because I don't think all the state's evidence was totally airtight (for many of the same reasons Geeky Girl cites), my opinion vacillates. And that is, indeed, reasonable doubt.

I don't think anyone--certainly not me, and not GeekyGirl, and probably not the jury--thinks Casey is innocent here. The question is whether the state has proven first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's debatable. No need to bang any heads on the wall!

(I have to say, that "banging head" smiley in response to other posters rubs me the wrong way; it just seems a wee bit passive-aggressive. JMO.)

 

[Nali87]

Unless the defense presents me with an official psych evaluation by an expert psychiatrist that CASEY ANTHONY is not normal, that there's something mentally wrong with her, I will continue to believe she would've reacted like countless of other people (including a felon, April) react when they find their child dead in the pool. Call 911. Try to save your baby. Give her a decent funeral. Mourn her. And no one will be able to convince me that George Anthony, an ex cop, thought it would be better to dump a body than report a tragic accident.

No doubt at all in my mind that Caylee was murdered.

I doubt any air-tight cases ever make it to trial. Those are plea-bargained the second it's possible. Most cases are all circumstancial evidence. But when you have 1000 of circumstancial evidence pointing to one person and no credible defense, then there's only one logical conclusion. Let's not forget here that Caylee was thrown away and left to skeletonize BECAUSE who ever put her there wanted to escape punishment. That to me proves guilt more than anything else would.

Normal people report an accident. The defense hasn't found a psychiatrist (and they seem to have found other experts to discredit other testimonies) to testify that Casey isn't normal. I'm sure if that defense was possible, they would've jumped on it! Therefore my conclusion is that Casey is "normal". Normal people report accidents, normal people (well normal killers) also try to evade punishment.

Oh yeah, Cindy Anthony and Lee Anthony's testimonies, I take them all with a graint of salt. Close family always come to the defense of an accused (and sometimes sentenced family member) if the case is not air-tight. For example, Scott Paterson, Amanda Knox, etc. That is also how normal people behave.

 

[claudicici]

ITA with GeekyGirl,I don't need an expert psychiatrist to tell me that KC is not normal.I think they should bring in her photobucket icons as evidence of what was really going on in her mind.I can totally see her not calling 911 after the accident.She had a date to go to and she does not deal with problems.She covers them up and pretends nothing happened and smiles big.She has the complete ability to detach herself from reality IMO.