Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
If I were on the jury, I could find her guilty of murder 1. I believe the murder was planned and that Caylee died at ICA's hands. I don't need to know how, although it would be nice if ICA finally told the truth (but that's not gonna happen).

I find it unbelievable, but ICA's DT presented some of the most damning evidence. CA's perjury about the web searches was absolute confirmation for me. I believe JB knew she was lying to cover for her daughter. And if CA didn't make those searches, then ICA did. The defense proved that point all on their own. They have no one to blame but themselves if/when ICA is convicted of murder.

I think showing that CA didn't make the searches was huge for the SA because it not only shows that Casey performed the searches but it also shows the jury that CA felt it was something to hide to protect Casey. I've never been totally sold on the internet searches as some of them just seem ridiculous (shovel, etc) but if her own Mother felt that she had to cover it up then it makes it seem like it holds more weight. I too wish we would know what really happened but unfortunately we know that will never ever happen.
 
"I keep six honest working men, they taught me all I know, their names are WHAT, WHY and WHEN, and HOW and WHERE and WHO" Rudyard Kipling

Of the six how many have the prosecutors answered?
 
I really do think Dr. G is a great ME, and I think her findings were solid given the information she had, I just don't agree that her testimony proved the duct tape was COD. MOO

I thought she testified that she didn't know the COD? She said that the manner of death was homicide if I recall.
 
"I keep six honest working men, they taught me all I know, their names are WHAT, WHY and WHEN, and HOW and WHERE and WHO" Rudyard Kipling

Of the six how many have the prosecutors answered?

Well being my user name is WHO_WHAT_WHEN I felt compelled to answer...lol

WHAT: The death of Caylee Anthony
WHY: It wasn't stated
WHEN: June 16th (per the DT)
HOW: Unsure
WHERE: Not stated
WHO: Casey Anthony
 
It's very bad for the defense that the state was able to end their case showing Cindy lied. It casts doubt on a number of other things she said that could have helped the DT case.

-her saying she didn't clean the trunk, just took some debris out
-her telling about the ladder position
-her telling about the sliding door
-her telling about the clothes
-her telling about the amazing bond Casey had with Caylee

There might be something else that I forgot but anyway, if I'm a juror I'm likely to discard most of Cindy's testimony except where she was forced to say things that point to Casey's guilt since she seems to lie in favor of the defense. So, I will believe Casey lied a lot to her mom about where Caylee was and that the trunk stank real bad and that Cindy did almost everything for Caylee including teaching her to swim and sorting her clothes.

I don't know what the juror instructions are but for me reasonable doubt becomes a lot harder when the defense appears dishonest.
 
I thought she testified that she didn't know the COD? She said that the manner of death was homicide if I recall.

You're correct, but I think even with her saying she couldn't determine COD there are a lot of people who were convinced it was by other statements she made. Not right or wrong, it just wasn't enough for me personally.
 
There is no doubt left for me...and the defense's CIC only proved that it was premeditated.
 
I have been a member of WS for months and never have I felt so strongly as I do with this case.....After viewing photos and going over all the testimony....IMO...I would not be able to honestly say without a reasonable doubt the Casey had nothing to do with Caylee's death. I have watched a cold, heartless, young woman.....who only thought of herself....My heart is broken for this beautiful little girl...RIP Caylee....may justice be done for you....
 
The defense has claimed that Caylee's death was an accidental drowning. They have also claimed that two people found her lifeless body. The state put one of those people on the stand who denied being present at the alleged accidental drowning and denied the accusations of molesting his daughter. The defense put no one on the stand to support their claim(s). They have not offered one shred of evidence to support reasonable doubt. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Sure, they don't have to. But if they can't, or won't, present any evidence to corroborate their story, then why on earth should anyone believe it?

:rocker: You said it better than I ever could. When I first heard about this case, I immediately thought that it might have been accidental and Casey freaked out. But as the years went by, and the evidence came out about the searches on the computer, the duct tape, and the chloroform plus decomp in the trunk, I stopped thinking that it was accidental and started to realize that it was intentional. The DT really should have worked with Casey to try to either get her to plea or to try to find evidence of an accident. They floated the theories about accidental drowning during the trial, but had absolutely nothing to back it up. They also mentioned how supposed molestation affected Casey and her behavior. Again-no evidence whatsoever to back that up. In fact, that theory didn't appear at all until the trial started. Casey certainly didn't seem to fear/hate her father in any of those recorded jail house visits. She never mentioned it in any of her depos or interrogations. It seemed to me like throughout the whole trial, the defense was just trying out random theories and hoping they would stick. It's pathetic to me. They had nearly three years to prepare for this trial, and they seemed completely unprepared in the court-room and JB certainly came off as amateurish. I believe their greatest mistake was in not getting Casey to plea out. She dug her own grave, in my opinion.
 
The only "reasonable doubt" I would accept would be evidence of bruising or cracked ribs that could be attributed to someone performing CPR on a cherished child, which would be a "reasonable" expectation when said child is found "lifeless" in a pool. I've performed CPR on stillborn puppies, FGS.

Good point. Great point in fact. There is nothing to show the frantic efforts people make when a beloved child is found lifeless, in a pool. No 911 call, no screaming heard by neighbors, no running to neighbors for help, no evidence or CPR having been attempted, nothing.

And that's the point. Accidental death victims do not end up triple bagged, duct tape on the skull and dumped in a marsh. It doesn't happen. No matter how wacky the family. In fact, emergencies and accidents or sudden, horrific incidents usually inspire dysfunctional people to act normally, even if only for a moment.

Logic should prevail here. The defense can throw out as many red herrings, false starts, accusations without basis, etc., to try to confuse the jury but logic should prevail. It's simple. Evidence was presented that Caylee was murdered and that it was premeditated. Whether people feel it was irrefutable or iron clad evidence or not, it was presented.

No evidence was presented that would substantiate any kind of accident.
 
Medical examiners can and DO rule deaths as homicides without knowing the cause of death.

Prosecutors have achieved murder convictions even WITHOUT a body since 1960 when the case of People v. Scott established that "circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused"

Today Judge Perry reminded Cheney Mason of a "no body" case in Florida that was successfully prosecuted, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Chillingworth"]Curtis Chillingworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation"]Case citation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Unitedstatesreports.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Unitedstatesreports.jpg/250px-Unitedstatesreports.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/e/e2/Unitedstatesreports.jpg/250px-Unitedstatesreports.jpg[/ame]
 
You're correct, but I think even with her saying she couldn't determine COD there are a lot of people who were convinced it was by other statements she made. Not right or wrong, it just wasn't enough for me personally.

I'm cool with that.It's just my opinion that when Dr G said she couldn't determine the COD, I take it as what she meant to convey.
 
I think there are doubts available to jurors to ponder. Children die accidental deaths every day and sometimes they are due to very neglectful parents. Could someone flip out and try to lie her way out of big trouble that would ensue? Probably, especially if your name is Casey Anthony.

Casey lied her way out of everything else, why not this? She lied about her job, her babysitter, her boyfriends, her child's father, that her family did/did not molest her, graduating from high school, stealing people's money and things. God only knows what else she lied about and swept under the rug. She was not accountable for anything ever before, why start taking heat when you totally buggered up supervising your child. For all anyone knows, "chloroform habit" was Casey's very own self indulgence, getting high while her daughter drowned in the tub or pool, unattended.

If I were a juror, I would wonder about those searches and what things like "hand to hand combat" and "household weapons" have to do with a plot to suffocate your kid. Why search shovel but not even bother to have one? As a juror, I really would like an explanation from the state why they included plots of hand to hand combat with a two year old to help me decide to agree with all of the state's assertions.

Btw, if Cindy was going to lie, she probably would have been better off saying she told Casey to search those things because of the dog being sick, Casey being home alone sometimes etc.
 
After today, not one iota of doubt is left for me. CA's lying about the chloroform searches sealed the deal for me 100%. She tried so hard all these 3 years to manipulate and control and cover this up for her daughter ICA, and after today I believe CA knew July 16 what really happened to Caylee, when she smelled death in the trunk of that car when they got home from the tow yard. She started immediately trying to clean-up and cover-up for ICA. I cannot imagine what this has done to CA or how she can even deal with all of this, but after all of her efforts to save her daughter, after today's testimony, she has sealed her fate. IMO, MOO, etc.
 
Good point. Great point in fact. There is nothing to show the frantic efforts people make when a beloved child is found lifeless, in a pool. No 911 call, no screaming heard by neighbors, no running to neighbors for help, no evidence or CPR having been attempted, nothing.

(respectfully snipped by me)

Logic should prevail here. The defense can throw out as many red herrings, false starts, accusations without basis, etc., to try to confuse the jury but logic should prevail. It's simple. Evidence was presented that Caylee was murdered and that it was premeditated. Whether people feel it was irrefutable or iron clad evidence or not, it was presented.

No evidence was presented that would substantiate any kind of accident.


I understand what your saying, but I think it's being presented as a false dilemma. It's not an either/or situation (the defense version vs the state version) Sometimes neither side has it completely right, and the jurors have to look at everything and decide what was proven BARD and what charges those proven facts support. I'll admit the defense in this trial just baffles me, but that doesn't mean I think the state should win by default. IMO It's not simple, and honestly, I don't think it should be. Those 12 people have someone's life in their hands, and as much as detest the deplorable person that is Casey Anthony, that doesn't relieve the jurors of their moral and legal responsibility to return a verdict based in fact and according to laws of the State of Florida. MOO
 
I think there are doubts available to jurors to ponder. Children die accidental deaths every day and sometimes they are due to very neglectful parents. Could someone flip out and try to lie her way out of big trouble that would ensue? Probably, especially if your name is Casey Anthony.

Casey lied her way out of everything else, why not this? She lied about her job, her babysitter, her boyfriends, her child's father, that her family did/did not molest her, graduating from high school, stealing people's money and things. God only knows what else she lied about and swept under the rug. She was not accountable for anything ever before, why start taking heat when you totally buggered up supervising your child. For all anyone knows, "chloroform habit" was Casey's very own self indulgence, getting high while her daughter drowned in the tub or pool, unattended.

If I were a juror, I would wonder about those searches and what things like "hand to hand combat" and "household weapons" have to do with a plot to suffocate your kid. Why search shovel but not even bother to have one? As a juror, I really would like an explanation from the state why they included plots of hand to hand combat with a two year old to help me decide to agree with all of the state's assertions.

Btw, if Cindy was going to lie, she probably would have been better off saying she told Casey to search those things because of the dog being sick, Casey being home alone sometimes etc.

You ever wound a game bird while hunting and had to finish it off by breaking its neck? Its a lot smaller than a two year old child. Its done though.The plot is killing someone. The research shows premeditation. Neck breaking proved to be too difficult for the killer to do. So duct tape over the nose and mouth became the preferred method. IMO.
 
I'm cool with that.It's just my opinion that when Dr G said she couldn't determine the COD, I take it as what she meant to convey.

I'm sorry, the last part of the sentence confused me, that she meant to convey what? Sorry if I'm missing the obvious... I hit the beach after work and got a little too much sun, tends to brings out my blonde moments :)
 
The actual cause of death has never been determined in the Stacey/Connor Peterson case and yet SP got the DP. Like SP, Casey is never going to tell how exactly she killed Caylee and, as far as I'm concerned, she should not be rewarded for that. She should not be rewarded for "getting lucky" by deposing of Caylee's poor body in the woods on the side of the road at a time when Hurricane Fay flooded the area and delayed Caylee's body being discovered long enough to allow it to decompose, leaving no evidence of COD. I can very reasonably conclude that ICA premeditatedly killed Caylee.
 
I'm sorry, the last part of the sentence confused me, that she meant to convey what? Sorry if I'm missing the obvious... I hit the beach after work and got a little too much sun, tends to brings out my blonde moments :)

Ok. She said she could not determine the COD. I think that is what she really meant. Nothing else.
 
This wasn't a great way for DT to end. CA shown to being lying abut something that shows premeditation isn't what you really want the jury going out on. I can't see 12 agreeing to acquit and could see 12 coming back to convict but they might need to meet in the middle and have it be 2nd or Agg Man. I'd prefer her to get life in prison.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,739

Forum statistics

Threads
598,885
Messages
18,087,620
Members
230,743
Latest member
ellllop
Back
Top