Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[leophoenix]

For me no. All the A's appear to be lying to me whether what they said was good for the defense or prosecution. So I would toss all A's testimony out of my head and from that no reasonable doubt yet. But, that is just me I tend to think people are lying in general when they over elaborate answers when no or yes is all that is necessary.

 

[D96s]

No!


As related to the chloroform, even IF CA searched for the word on the 17th to check about her dogs, that doesn't explain how the HIGH levels of it were found in ICA's trunk.

For me, it might be a way for the SA to link ICA to the chloroform by saying ICA saw it in her history decided to check it out and then used it on Caylee.

We also still don't know what is on those Home Depot tapes. They are in evidence for a reason, I'm just not sure why yet but am hopeful it relates to ICA buying ingredients for Chloroform.

I still think the dogs were "drowsy, groggy" because ICA was testing her Chloroform out on them!

 

[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.

I've been thinking more about this... Didn't jury hear that Casey originally old LE that Caylee was kidnapped? Not a theory advanced by the defense, but I think they've still heard it.

 

[Nefriahaia]

I still think the dogs were "drowsy, groggy" because ICA was testing her Chloroform out on them!

ITA! :sick:

 

[chefmom]

IMO, any doubt the DT has managed to raise in the jury will easily be answered by the SA in their closing and rebuttal.

 

[magnolia]

I would like to see LWOP too, but at this point I doubt it will happen.
I never thought the death penalty would come to play and now I am wondering if she will just get convicted on lesser charges. I'm just not feeling real positive about the outcome right now.
Hopefully JA and LDB will give a super convincing closing argument.

I hate to say it, but,I agree with you. :banghead: I'm not feeling very positive about the outcome either.

 

[gypsychild]

As soon as this trial began I thought 1st degree with dp was a huge mistake when there is no solid physical evidence absolutely linking her to an actual pre-meditated or deliberate murder. Everything the State is bringing, from the sniff evidence to the dogs to the duct tape and computer searches, is not hard fact, not physical proof - not proveable without a reasonable doubt imo.
The DT strategy seems to be a "baffle them with bullsh**t" theme, and I think it's ridiculous, but it may just confuse and razzle dazzle 'em enough to be effective. if this was a bench trial I would have more confidence in a guilty verdict. But all there is of true set-in-stone evidence is that she is a , the mother is a liar, the father is weak and the brother has issues. But that does not a guilty verdict make.
IMO of course. But I would LOVE to be wrong.

 

[Carrington]

I still think the dogs were "drowsy, groggy" because ICA was testing her Chloroform out on them!

IF Cindy put that information together, it might wake her up.
I'm sure she still cares about her dogs.
IMO

 

[Nova]

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).

I think this is a really good post, but I should also point out that juries don't always adopt the theory of either side. Some look at the testimony and invent their own, completely original story of what happened.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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!!!!!

The good news is - as soon as the Jury had heard those testimonies, they went out to the Jury room and KBelich reports they burst into loud laughter....

 

[amickeyfan]

For me, no it did not raise doubt, for the jury, I cannot even begin to guess. I know I get to hear more than the jury does, so I cannot put myself in their shoes. I just wish there were some things they could get to hear that they aren't being allowed to such as her taking the plea deal on the check & fraud charges. I do think that it does pertain to the case. It shows her frame of mind during those 31 days. I think they should see the pictures she uploaded to her photobucket, that too shows her frame of mind. Any doubt that may have been created, might be wiped away in the jury's mind. That to me, is what's wrong with the court system. They hold too many things back from the jury, therefore not allowing them to make a "real" informed decision. The images of the apple skull are pertaining to this case. Rotting food in her trunk/decomposed body.... picture of an apple carved into a skull.. doesn't that equal something pointing to her character?

 

[wallflower67]

If the defense were not so against admitting there was a body in the damn car, I might have some reasonable doubt. But 31 days plus pretending there is no body there....

I just don't see how the jurors could get through all that testimony and not believe Caylee was rotting in the trunk for a few days.

Bringing sex abuse and Roy Kronk moving the body just makes no sense to me at all.

Pondering that would make me second guess anything else the defense is saying.

The DT should have just said, "Caylee drowned, Casey panicked and covered it up badly." And they should have said it 3 years ago!

 

[bayouland]

To me the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and then some.

 

[cuppy199]

The only thing the Dt has done by bring their clients family on the stand is make the states case stronger.

 

[LittlePeng]

I stumbled on this site awhile back, looking for an update on the Darlie Routier trial...and I've been following (cough, cough - lurking) Casey's trial since. I don't know the background, but from what I've seen and heard just watching the trial?

1. No reasonable doubt has been established. At all. In fact, I don't know what the heck the defense has done except violate the court order about discovery over...and over...and over...oh, and bore the jury to near death with the inane questioning.
2. If I were a juror I would see right through CA's hijinx. Her daughter might be put to death, so what does she have to lose by lying? Her integrity? Please...that ship sailed a long time ago, from what I've read here.
3. The media hounds who constantly talk about this case are sucking up the attention they're getting for deliberately stirring controversy. Media "hounds" are like that - no attention is bad attention, and controversy brings more viewers than playing nice.
4. I have to try this cow icon, hope it works! :cow:

 

[GeekyGirl]

Just wondering if anyone who had any reasonable doubt at the beginning of the defense's CIC feels differently now that it appears they're getting close to the end...

 

[suepitzl]

The defense has not created reasonable doubt at all, they in fact bolstered the States case IMO. How many defense witnesses helped the state, I think about 98%

 

[sleutherer]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

Yes!

I have reasonable doubt Baez is much of an attorney.

 

[GennyMac]

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.

Agreed entirely. The Peterson jury definitely wrestled with what 'doubt' was actually provided by the defense and we see how that turned out.

I just want her to have to sit in her cell for 23 hours a day for the rest of her life..........all alone. That would be punishment enough for what she's done. LWOP yup yup, and the DP - man I hate to say this but I'd celebrate that one.

I just don't want her out to harm anyone else - cause everyone who has had contact with her has been harmed.

 

[justthinkin]

This is the first time I've followed a trial this closely. I find JB to be very abusive in the way he's examined and cross-examined people. Is this normal or is this just JB?

His presentation just strikes me as bullying and unprofessional whereas LDB strikes me as being very professional, and her cross-examinations don't have the earmark of bullying in the least, and yet she gets the job done far better than JB, and without a single smirk.