Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[feddup]

I don't believe they have created doubt...I believe they have shown the lengths ICA will go to to not accept responsbility for her own actions by throwing her father under that mack truck, shame on her. This is the little fact that might do her in...some of the men are dads and I so hope they see how dispicable and incredulous this defense is...

The DT has shown that CA/LA are bias and will discount what they've said to a point ( I truely want to know what LA said to Baez and what it was he overheard ).

I just hope they use common sense and understand that if an accident truly occured, why didn't ICA call 911 immediately? If an accident occured why did it take ICA three years ( to the day ) to tell of this alleged drowning? Why would she sit in prison all this time? ICA has many chances to tell the truth before her arrest for child neglect and lying to officials...those 31 days are crucial...I only hope the jury sees it this way as well..JMHO

Justice for Caylee

ITA,,,how in the world can they ignore the 31 days of her avoiding Moms wanting to speak to Caylee, telling so many LIES, out clubbing, the PICTURES of her out clubbing while Caylee was laying dead in the woods??
They have not proved GA molested her, not at all.
oops, forgot the imaginary nanny. No amt of tryig to create reasonable doubt could overshadow the FACTS.
Oh and Dr Vass' testimony would be a biggie, too. Him saying the smell from the can and how Chloroform levels were over the top. He IS an expert in this stuff.

 

[feddup]

Respectfully snipped

To me, that was one of the most ridiculous parts of Lee's testimony. How do you live in a small house, next door to the room that is being turned into a nursery, and not be aware of it? Uh uh. Doesn't hold water. If I was juror, I would think he was lying, and that would make me ponder just what else in his testimony was not true.

MOO

Actually, I think he knew it was there but chose to ignore it. After all, they left him out, shut him out and I believe he said even his girlfriend was not invited to shower.
Actually, I think we saw some guilt from Lee in his testimony. I think now that Caylee is gone he feels guilty he wasnt a better Uncle, he said it. He is truly sad about this but that is the impression I got. JMO

 

[GeekyGirl]

Actually, I think he knew it was there but chose to ignore it. After all, they left him out, shut him out and I believe he said even his girlfriend was not invited to shower.
Actually, I think we saw some guilt from Lee in his testimony. I think now that Caylee is gone he feels guilty he wasnt a better Uncle, he said it. He is truly sad about this but that is the impression I got. JMO

If you read the transcript of his depo with the state, it sort of gives a clearer picture, it doesn't sound like he ignored the nursery going up so much as CA rebuffing him every time he asked about it, so he just quit asking. MOO

 

[sherbetjello]

I lurk here, and I do watch the testimony and I do read over these threads.

I have to say, I am starting to get worried, and somewhat confused. Since I only peek in here, I could be seen as a "juror" that had no prior knowledge of this case (which is false.I found WS through Caylee Anthony.)

The testimony yesterday by CA REALLY threw me for a loop. I got stuck on the duct tape fingerprint previously, but I let that go. Then LA talking about how the family kept him unaware of the pregnancy... for me, this really is adding up in a way I don't like.

This is JMO, from someone here that would considered "outside" of all the information on this thread.

I know this and even I consider it somewhat scary.
I don't think they will get 12, and I don't know where I stand on "who done it" anymore.

My spouse started watching the case with me the other day and said "This is the girl years ago, right? The one who had the party mom?" and I was like "Yeah, she is finally on trial."

As they watched they said "There is not one thing connecting this woman to the murder."

I know that many here want justice in this case, even I do, but from me and my spouse's reaction to this case, I don't know what this outcome could even be at this point.

 

[Who_What_When]

I think the only thing connecting Casey to Caylee's murder is the smell and decomposed hair in her trunk. Her partying and not reporting her missing for 31 days does not connect her to the actual murder, it just proves she is heartless and didn’t care about Caylee or what happened. Because the SA has not proven how she died the DT is able to create some reasonable doubt because it could be possible that she died in a pool drowning and just covered it up. Does that make sense? Maybe not to the normal person, but I think Casey is very capable of lying and covering it up just because she doesn’t want to deal with the consequences. What makes it worse for the SA is if her own family decides to say they are responsible for some of the items that tie her to a murder (internet searches, duct tape, etc). Let’s just hope George doesn’t decide to go along with any of it because if he does then I can’t see how they will be able to convict her of murder 1. However, I would think that she would automatically get Aggravated Manslaughter since her own DT is saying that she died under her watch and then covered it up.

 

[crucibelle]

I think there's a difference between asking if anyone's actions in this case are reasonable (IMO there's nothing reasonable about the death of a 2 year old being covered up for over a month and her remains being treated so callously) versus a jurors reasonable doubt over whether the events occurred the way the prosecution or defense proposes they did. Not sure if that helps... As always, MOO.

Very good point, GG.

 

[crucibelle]

On the subject of ICA perhaps placing the duct tape to stage a kidnapping: This MIGHT have worked and raised a reasonable doubt with the jury. But... the defense didn't claim that. They are saying that ICA DID NOT place the tape, at all. Instead, they are pointing the finger and George & Roy Kronk. I don't think the jury is going to buy that George or Roy Kronk placed that tape. Why would the jury then make a jump to "well maybe she tried to stage a kidnapping" from what has been presented to them? Remember, they don't know as much about this case as we all do.

 

[crucibelle]

OK, my honest opinion, after seeing Friday's testimony (I've not seen any of today's testimony yet): I think that the defense has raised at least some reasonable doubt. Even if the jury has poo-poo'd the rest of the DT theory, I think they will be asking themselves "could this baby HAVE drowned in the pool?" I have much faith in the State, however, and I hope they will remove this doubt (if I'm correct) with their rebuttal. JMO & of course I could be totally wrong about there being a reasonable doubt (I hope that I am).

 

[GeekyGirl]

On the subject of ICA perhaps placing the duct tape to stage a kidnapping: This MIGHT have worked and raised a reasonable doubt with the jury. But... the defense didn't claim that. They are saying that ICA DID NOT place the tape, at all. Instead, they are pointing the finger and George & Roy Kronk. I don't think the jury is going to buy that George or Roy Kronk placed that tape. Why would the jury then make a jump to "well maybe she tried to stage a kidnapping" from what has been presented to them? Remember, they don't know as much about this case as we all do.

That's an excellent point, they haven't heard that theory. Will have to ponder on that.

 

[RoseTree]

Respectfully snipped

To me, that was one of the most ridiculous parts of Lee's testimony. How do you live in a small house, next door to the room that is being turned into a nursery, and not be aware of it? Uh uh. Doesn't hold water. If I was juror, I would think he was lying, and that would make me ponder just what else in his testimony was not true.

MOO

This testimony felt very coached to me, parts may have been true, but coached. We saw genuine Lee when he was asked about Cindy going over the top with decorating, etc.... other than that he was evasive. Poor Lee, who knows what he is going through or trying to do.

 

[denmock]

This testimony felt very coached to me, parts may have been true, but coached. We saw genuine Lee when he was asked about Cindy going over the top with decorating, etc.... other than that he was evasive. Poor Lee, who knows what he is going through or trying to do.

So the mother and brother of the defendant gets on the stand and cries and (IMO) appear to be bolstering their testimony and show a couple of pictures of a pool, and all the sudden I throw out the overwhelming evidence that EVERYONE (even her parents) smelt a dead body in the car and there was a post mortem hair in the back, of a car that only she had posession of, and did not report her child missing for 31 days and got a Bella Vita tatoo, ect and now i am turned 180????? PUHLEEZZZZ!!!!!

 

[CuriousTwo]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt? ....

Not for me. The rehearsed script of the family members confirming and expounding upon the family dysfunction, is all part of the DT and A family plan. If they can convince ANY ONE person on the jury that ICA's actions are due to her upbringing, their goal is accomplished. GA, CA and LA will do anything they have to do to save her from the DP ... including making themselves out to be the craziest, most outrageous family imaginable.

At the start of this case, they went out of their way to try to convince the public that they were a "normal" family and now they are doing just the opposite - JB's master plan. IMHO.

 

[JBounds]

As they watched they said "There is not one thing connecting this woman to the murder."

The same could be said about Scott Peterson as well. And there are lots of similarities. Lies, promiscuous, the bodies close in the vicinity, nonchalant attitudes, bodies found after storms,strange background with family, crazy behaviors and on and on. Yet the jury found him guilty. One juror said because of his demeanor after the fact. (I'm paraphrasing)

There is no way she won't be found not guilty unless something miraculous happens.

 

[Nova]

I've served on a couple of high profile capital trials with death sentences as a probability and I can say that there was always a couple of young, gullible jurors who knew absolutely nothing about law and were so confused that they argued that the Defense did not prove the defendant innocent????????? Yeah, you read it correctly, innocent! I have been a bit concerned that this trial will result with a hung jury simply because at least a couple of the jurors openly stated that they did not believe in the death penalty and one even stated that they could not judge another person. I'm sure that the DT has thrown enough spaghetti against the wall to confuse some of these jurors and I have feeling that there is a very real possibility that this jury will not come to a unanimous decision on the verdict. If by some miracle a verdict is made I do not think that the "death penalty" will be recommended by the jury.

We, the people on WS who have followed many cases all the way through the sentencing can see all the holes in the defenses attempts to raise "reasonable doubt", however to the ordinary citizens in the rest of the work, LOL, it is going to be difficult to see the "fairy tales" for what they are.:twocents:

How did your juries as groups deal with those young jurors, LT?

I ask because in the two deliberations I've experienced, people said stupid things (like "He looks like a ; he must have done something!"), but other people gently pointed out the errors and corrected the wrong thinking. (There was a thread about this here years ago, and some WSers reported opposite experiences: one juror who completely misunderstood the law browbeat everyone else into going along.)

 

[Nova]

i enjoy your style of writing and the way you present your opinion.

if the duct tape was indeed placed after the death, it may not point to murder, but it suggests very fishy circumstances surrounding the death (well, even without the duct tape considered at all, 2 year olds don't just randomly die so there are fishy circumstances anyway), such as neglect or abuse unintentionally resulting in death. putting duct tape over her face in order to make it look like it was NOT an accident still screams of guilt of SOMETHING, whether it was murder or a fishy accident.

a question: others have said that child abuse unintentionally resulting in death is still considered felony murder and can still get the DP, correct? is this the same for child neglect resulting in death? or does that become manslaughter? a lot of the time organizations dealing with child abuse also concern child neglect, saying that neglect is a form of abuse. but what about legally in terms of this case? if it is proven that caylee died by accident due to neglect instead of abuse (or outright premeditated murder), would it still be considered a DP case?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think child abuse and child neglect are the same thing legally. (They may well be equivalent morally, but that's another matter.)

 

[Nova]

It will boil down to the jury's ability to internalize the jury charge and the specific instructions as to what constitutes a reasonable doubt. If the jury deliberates and discusses that aspect, I believe they will come to a decision based on the law and not on their own personal flights of "possibility". If they don't, all bets are off. Most juries do not truly deliberate "reasonable" in the terms presented to them. They tend to presume its meaning from their own experience and decide what constitutes a reasonable doubt, then disregard information that contradicts that opinion.

That's simply the long and short of it. Read interviews from jurors after cases, and you inevitably find the wildest versions of "reasonable" doubts being offered in their decision making processes. Unfortunately, the law cannot intervene in that process beyond issuing the appropriate charges and instructions and providing remedial measures in some cases which they judge may apply in accepting the verdict or assessing sentence.

So, it comes down to who's in the seats (hence the critical role of jury selection) as to even the possibility of a guilty verdict in a case involving circumstantial evidence, for example. If a juror is determined to consider any doubt as reasonable -- and is able to internalize it as such -- they will often do so regardless of instruction.

:cow:

Honestly, both of the juries I was on deliberated at length and carefully over the meaning of "reasonable doubt." I'm not doubting you that you've heard all sorts of crazy statements by jurors after verdicts, but treating "reasonable doubt" carelessly isn't universal, by any means.

 

[USARDOG]

Yes, reasonable doubt as to their sanity and competence.

 

[ami]

I lurk here, and I do watch the testimony and I do read over these threads.

I have to say, I am starting to get worried, and somewhat confused. Since I only peek in here, I could be seen as a "juror" that had no prior knowledge of this case (which is false.I found WS through Caylee Anthony.)

The testimony yesterday by CA REALLY threw me for a loop. I got stuck on the duct tape fingerprint previously, but I let that go. Then LA talking about how the family kept him unaware of the pregnancy... for me, this really is adding up in a way I don't like.

This is JMO, from someone here that would considered "outside" of all the information on this thread.

I know this and even I consider it somewhat scary.
I don't think they will get 12, and I don't know where I stand on "who done it" anymore.

My spouse started watching the case with me the other day and said "This is the girl years ago, right? The one who had the party mom?" and I was like "Yeah, she is finally on trial."

As they watched they said "There is not one thing connecting this woman to the murder."

I know that many here want justice in this case, even I do, but from me and my spouse's reaction to this case, I don't know what this outcome could even be at this point.

BBM.

Respectfully, if he started watching the trial the other day, he was watching the Defense's witnesses - the Prosecution presented their evidence before that, so your spouse missed the part of the trial containing the evidence connecting her to the murder. There was quite a bit of it.

 

[Kat]

My third vote:

Since the defense is just about finishing up. Possible but not probable. But they could have, IMHO. They just didn't defend her the way she should have been defended. JMHO.

 

[ami]

My third vote:

Since the defense is just about finishing up. Possible but not probable. But they could have, IMHO. They just didn't defend her the way she should have been defended. JMHO.

I agree. I can think of a few different scenarios that I would (sort of) buy that would still address most of the evidence but also allow me reasonable doubt that it was an accident rather than murder. I don't think I'd entirely believe the scenarios, but I could have reasonably doubted premeditated murder. They didn't tell those believable stories, so with the way things stand, no doubt for me.