Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Who_What_When]

How did Laci and Conner Peterson die??? No cause of death! They washed ashore months later. And Scott P is sitting on death row right now......

I understand that many convictions are made with just circumstantial evidence, however the thing that I believe convicted Scott Peterson was not only the circumstantial evidence but a motive. Unfortunately I'm not sure that the SA in this case has given any motive as to why Casey killed Caylee.

Just to be clear...I THINK CASEY IS GUILTY. I just don't know if the jury has enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder.

 

[RANCH]

I understand the term Corpus Delicti and that is why I'm saying that the SA hasn't proven BARD that a crime has occured. All we know is that Caylee died and her death was hidden. We know that her mother went on about life without any worries and didn't report her missing for 31 days (that is until her mother made her report it) and that she lied about her whereabouts. This screams Aggravated Manslaugher but without proving how or why she died or that an acutal crime of murder was committed it makes it difficult to say that BARD she was murdered.

Oh, I agree with the aggravated manslaughter. But what about the duct tape? I just can't get past that.I can't believe someone would tape a dead little girl after an accidental drowning, making it look like a kidnapping/murder.

 

[yolorado]

From most of the comments it seems like a lot of people have made up their minds and won't even consider that it could have been an accident. I keep reading that it doesn't matter how she died just that Casey did it, well how do you know that? I don't see any concrete evidence showing me that Casey murdered Caylee. The only thing that I see that even comes close to tying Casey to this is her trunk (the smell and hair), but that only proves that she put her in the trunk. It doesn’t prove that she murdered her. She could have accidentally drowned or died from being left in a hot car. I’m not saying that this is what happened, BUT without knowing how she died how can anyone say she is guilty of first degree murder? This is why the jury will have to believe that chloroform or the duct tape was used as a weapon otherwise it hasn’t been proven BARD. JMO

Thing is...actions have to matter. Doubts have to be reasonable. 31 days. SHE never reported the child dead or missing. No noticeable stress that the child was kidnapped and/or dead for the 31 days, the lies, the changing stories, the police obstruction, the baby thrown away in a swamp. Insisting the child was alive if she knew she wasn't, leading on family, searchers, the world. Saying if she got bailed out she'd help find Caylee. The duct tape, the blanket. The computer searches. People whose children die in accidents call 911 and/or the police. They report. They explain. They have funerals and memorial services. They sit in cemeteries with umbrellas in the rain. If an accident is a mom's fault or she thinks it is, or she knows she acted negligently, she might cover up....for a while, but there really is a window of time to come clean before failure to do so points to something much more sinister. If this was an accident, I see no possible reason to wait three years knowing that your family is in shambles. If the mom knows someone else is responsible, or could clear her name why on earth wait until trial to disclose it?

Makes no sense. I've wanted it to be an accident and thought it was...due to something KC did that was very negligent, but she insists through her defense that not to be the case. They story she does tell makes no sense. Now that she's no longer blaming the imaginary baby sitter (in two versions), she's blaming everyone BUT herself. I don't believe her defense is plausible. I'm offended that she's blaming innocent witnesses. I believe Roy Kronk, that he simply discovered the body, remembered where he thought he'd seen something and went back later, when he was in the area for work, after the police didn't follow up. He doesn't deserve to be smeared. There's absolutely no proof he is a body snatcher or had anything else to do with this case. There is absolutely no proof that George or Lee molested KC. If they didn't and she's saying they did, she's committing an act herself every bit as vile as sexual molestation. I see this an another obvious lie to avoid responsibility for Caylee's death...how ever it occurred. There's no proof that George had anything to do with Caylee's death or disposal. Why would she accuse the innocent and wait three years to cry accident if she hadn't killed the baby? KC had Caylee and never disputed that,,,until now. KC never reported her missing or dead or mourned her before Cindy called the police. KC lied, lied& lied and never told the police what actually happened so that it could be investigated and proven. Baby turns up dead, duct-taped and trash-bagged in swamp. Accidents are admitted to and accident victim's remains are disposed of properly, not thrown away like garbage so they don't cause trouble for the victim's mom.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Oh, I agree with the aggravated manslaughter. But what about the duct tape? I just can't get past that.I can't believe someone would tape a dead little girl after an accidental drowning, making it look like a kidnapping/murder.

I can't fathom a person pretending to have a job, robbing their parents blind, making up imaginary people, etc. and actually getting away with it for two years but it happened.

 

[LambChop]

Totally Agree. no COD and as to manner of death, Dr G's theory just proved the child was put in bags to conceal. Duct tape could have been to close the bag. That tape could have been anywhere at that recovery scene. Water, wind, animals, or RK could have moved, shifted that tape. So to me, no COD, no MOD. But, I have a feeling she will be convict of Murder due to the 31 days which is sad.

I think the jaw bone held in place is the deciding factor in terms of the duct tape as it was clearly held in place the whole 6 months. Jaw bones do not stay with the skull once the tissue is gone. Plus it is highly unlikely the tape floated there in the shape of the child's face being specifically the same size as her head. Taping up a bag would have required tape in much longer proportions. If this had truly been an accident KC had the opportunity to tell SAO Caylee's location in late 2008 for limited immunity and she declined to answer because KC already knew there was duct tape on Caylee's face. There would have been no reason at that time not to cooperate if it had been an accident because it had already been presented to the SA's office as a possibility by TL, the DP attorney JB had brought on at the time. KC was powerless to do anything because of the duct tape. She knew it and I believe this because after the offer was not accepted, JB knew too.

I don't think just the 31 days would be the deciding factor. I think the total evidence is what will bring her down. Lying, changing her story, implicating her whole family and just her inappropriate responses to certain things going on in court will influence the jury. jmo

 

[amickeyfan]

I understand the term Corpus Delicti and that is why I'm saying that the SA hasn't proven BARD that a crime has occured. All we know is that Caylee died and her death was hidden. We know that her mother went on about life without any worries and didn't report her missing for 31 days (that is until her mother made her report it) and that she lied about her whereabouts. This screams Aggravated Manslaugher but without proving how or why she died or that an acutal crime of murder was committed it makes it difficult to say that BARD she was murdered.

Isn't the act of covering up a death a crime? Isn't Aggravated Manslaughter a crime? Remember, she isn't only being charged with 1st degree..

 

[RANCH]

I have always thought this was all a tragic "accident" that the inmate tried to cover up. And by "accident" I mean accidental overdose of xanax, benadryl, chloroform. This is why I feel like she felt the need to cover it up because she didn't want to get in trouble for committing these heinous acts against her child.

I've always felt like there have been a grain of truth in the inmates fantasies

"Zanny took her" (xanax overdose?)

"I don't know where she's at" (revisted dump site and couldn't find her again?)

Maybe the 31 days of partying was the inmates attempt of acting "normal" so no one would suspect anything? Or maybe she knew her days were numbered and she partied like there was no tomorrow. This case is so mind bending b/c there are so many different scenarios that could fit. I truly believe that if she were not confronted by Lee and Cindy the inmate would probably never report Caylee's absence.

Oh my I seem to have begun to ramble.

Is there reasonable doubt? I don't think so. I think the state (and the defense) tied it up pretty well at the end. Caylee Marie is dead and the inmate (no matter HOW it happened) is ultimately responsible since she was the mother and caregiver and she failed at keeping her child safe. And not only that, she led law enforcement and the nation to dead end after dead end. Down roads that all led AWAY from her.


this is all my own opinion, of course.

Ok thats still felony murder. Aggravated child abuse that results in death.

 

[Who_What_When]

Is Agg Man 13-30 years in Florida?

According to this site it's 30 years.

http://www.cfnews13.com/casey-anthony-faq?cmpid=caseytwitter

 

[Who_What_When]

Isn't the act of covering up a death a crime? Isn't Aggravated Manslaughter a crime? Remember, she isn't only being charged with 1st degree..

I know that's why I said this is aggravated manslaughter and not felony murder.

 

[LambChop]

I understand that many convictions are made with just circumstantial evidence, however the thing that I believe convicted Scott Peterson was not only the circumstantial evidence but a motive. Unfortunately I'm not sure that the SA in this case has given any motive as to why Casey killed Caylee.

Just to be clear...I THINK CASEY IS GUILTY. I just don't know if the jury has enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder.

BBM: How about 31 days?

 

[RANCH]

I can't fathom a person pretending to have a job, robbing their parents blind, making up imaginary people, etc. and actually getting away with it for two years but it happened.

The house of cards fell. She was left with no other choice but to start anew. Caylee then died.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Thing is...actions have to matter. Doubts have to be reasonable. 31 days. SHE never reported the child dead or missing. No noticeable stress that the child was kidnapped and/or dead for the 31 days, the lies, the changing stories, the police obstruction, the baby thrown away in a swamp. Insisting the child was alive if she knew she wasn't, leading on family, searchers, the world. Saying if she got bailed out she'd help find Caylee. The duct tape, the blanket. The computer searches. People whose children die in accidents call 911 and/or the police. They report. They explain. They have funerals and memorial services. They sit in cemeteries with umbrellas in the rain. If an accident is a mom's fault or she thinks it is, or she knows she acted negligently, she might cover up....for a while, but there really is a window of time to come clean before failure to do so points to something much more sinister. If this was an accident, I see no possible reason to wait three years knowing that your family is in shambles. If the mom knows someone else is responsible, or could clear your name why on earth wait until trial to disclose it? Makes no sense. I've wanted it to be an accident and thought it was...due to something KC did that was very negligent, but she insists through her defense that not to be the case. They story she does tell makes no sense. Now that she's no longer blaming the imaginary baby sitter (in two versions), she's blaming everyone BUT herself. I don't believe her defense is plausible. I believe Roy Kronk was a reasonable witness who simply discovered the body, remembered where he thought he'd seen something and went back later, when he was in the area for word, after the police didn't follow up. There's absolutely no proof he is a body snatcher or had anything else to do with this case. There is absolutely no proof that George or Lee molested KC and so what if they did. There's also no proof that they had anything to do with Caylee's death or disposal. KC had Caylee. KC never reported her missing or dead or mourned her. KC lied and never told the police what actually happened so that it could be proven. Baby turns up dead, duct-taped and trash-bagged in swamp. Accidents are admitted to and accident victim's remains are disposed of properly, not thrown away like garbage so they don't cause trouble for the victim's mom.

I don't buy anything the defense had to offer, and I think it's been proven that it didn't happen that way. The thing is, the defense was designed to absolve Casey of ALL responsibility in Caylee's death. People do try to cover up negligent homicides. Not all the time, but it does happen. I'd venture to say that when most of those people do get caught, they don't usually roll the dice with their lives like Casey is doing, but I doubt she's the first person to proclaim her innocence despite major evidence to the contrary. It doesn't make her the most reasonable person in the world, but it's not necessarily proof she's a murderer either.

 

[amickeyfan]

I know that's why I said this is aggravated manslaughter and not felony murder.

Oh, I thought you were saying that they didn't even show a crime was committed.. sorry... I misread your post.. I personally think it is aggravated child abuse.. and then it does fall under felony murder.. (I think it would fall under it that way). ...but either way, I did misread your post.. sorry..

 

[Who_What_When]

Thing is...actions have to matter. Doubts have to be reasonable. 31 days. SHE never reported the child dead or missing. No noticeable stress that the child was kidnapped and/or dead for the 31 days, the lies, the changing stories, the police obstruction, the baby thrown away in a swamp. Insisting the child was alive if she knew she wasn't, leading on family, searchers, the world. Saying if she got bailed out she'd help find Caylee. The duct tape, the blanket. The computer searches. People whose children die in accidents call 911 and/or the police. They report. They explain. They have funerals and memorial services. They sit in cemeteries with umbrellas in the rain. If an accident is a mom's fault or she thinks it is, or she knows she acted negligently, she might cover up....for a while, but there really is a window of time to come clean before failure to do so points to something much more sinister. If this was an accident, I see no possible reason to wait three years knowing that your family is in shambles. If the mom knows someone else is responsible, or could clear her name why on earth wait until trial to disclose it?

Makes no sense. I've wanted it to be an accident and thought it was...due to something KC did that was very negligent, but she insists through her defense that not to be the case. They story she does tell makes no sense. Now that she's no longer blaming the imaginary baby sitter (in two versions), she's blaming everyone BUT herself. I don't believe her defense is plausible. I'm offended that she's blaming innocent witnesses while taking no responsibility upon herself. I believe Roy Kronk was a reasonable witness who simply discovered the body, remembered where he thought he'd seen something and went back later, when he was in the area for work, after the police didn't follow up. He doesn't deserve to be smeared. There's absolutely no proof he is a body snatcher or had anything else to do with this case. There is absolutely no proof that George or Lee molested KC and so what if they did. If they didn't molest KC and she's saying they did, she's committing an act herself every bit as vile as sexual molestation. I see this an another obvious lie to avoid the consequences for her responsibility in Caylee's death...how ever it occurred. There's also no proof that George had anything to do with Caylee's death or disposal. Why would she accuse the innocent and wait three years to cry accident if she hadn't killed the baby? KC had Caylee. KC never reported her missing or dead or mourned her. KC lied, lied& lied and never told the police what actually happened so that it could be investigated and proven. Baby turns up dead, duct-taped and trash-bagged in swamp. Accidents are admitted to and accident victim's remains are disposed of properly, not thrown away like garbage so they don't cause trouble for the victim's mom.

I think you're misunderstand what I'm saying. I do believe that Casey is guilty and yes I do believe that her actions will count against her and they should, I just don't see how all of this proves BARD that she murdered her daughter. It just proves that she is a vile human being who lies and steals to get what she wants. It proves that she has no sense of reality and that she cares about no one but herself. Her actions show that she was either afraid of getting in trouble, in denial about the whole thing or that she was covering up a crime or an accident. It doesn't prove that she KILLED her, unless you believe she was covering up a crime and then you have to ask yourself, "what was the crime" and without knowing how she died how can you say it was a crime? I hope that the jury does believe that she did murder her because I think that she did but that is just my feeling and because of her actions afterward, but if I was on the jury I couldn't convict her because I thought she did it without having actual proof that she did. These are two different things and I think most people are deciding on her guilt because of everything we know or have read or because our gut tells us, but the jury can't go by these things alone. They have to follow the instructions given and that's what worries me.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The house of cards fell. She was left with no other choice but to start anew. Caylee then died.

That wasn't exactly my point. I was trying to point out that it's hard to understand why anything was done the way it was because we're all (at least I hope everyone on here is) rational, functional, moral adults. I don't exactly understand the duct tape after death either, but it's sort of a mind boggling murder weapon too.

 

[Who_What_When]

Oh, I thought you were saying that they didn't even show a crime was committed.. sorry... I misread your post.. I personally think it is aggravated child abuse.. and then it does fall under felony murder.. (I think it would fall under it that way). ...but either way, I did misread your post.. sorry..

No problem. I don't know how it all falls together either but that would be good if it does work that way.

 

[GeekyGirl]

BTW... Just wanted to say thanks to everyone on this thread tonight for an excellent, respectful debate.I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and ideas, even if we don't agree.

 

[Who_What_When]

BBM: How about 31 days?

The 31 days doesn't prove murder. It proves aggravated child abuse. It proves she didn't care or that she was scared and wasn't about to take responsibilty for the death of her child.

 

[RANCH]

That wasn't exactly my point. I was trying to point out that it's hard to understand why anything was done the way it was because we're all gat least I hope everyone on here is) rational, functional, moral adults. I don't exactly understand the duct tape after death either, but it's sort of a mind boggling murder weapon too.

It's a very horrific murder weapon. But it's functional. I can't understand why someone would kill another person under ANY circumstance.Well maybe self defense. But it happens.Much too often.

 

[Who_What_When]

Oh, I agree with the aggravated manslaughter. But what about the duct tape? I just can't get past that.I can't believe someone would tape a dead little girl after an accidental drowning, making it look like a kidnapping/murder.

I'm not sure about the duct tape. I hate to say it but I would have liked to have seen the photos so that I could get a better idea. Hopefully it was clear to the jury.