Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[katydid23]

The difference is first degree murder, second degree murder or aggravated manslaughter.

placing tape over their mouth and nose while they are sleeping: first degree murder
accidentally giving your child too much chloroform: second degree murder
uploading fusion pix while your child swims alone in the pool: aggravated manslaughter

I understand that. What I meant was that I don't really care if the jury decides on LWOP vs 30 yrs vs LiFE w/Parole. I will be satisfied with any of those.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Freaking A, I just wrote out a whole answer to the post with the definition of premeditation and it didn't take... .

 

[GeekyGirl]

I understand that. What I meant was that I don't really care if the jury decides on LWOP vs 30 yrs vs LiFE w/Parole. I will be satisfied with any of those.

Not trying to be snarky but you do realize that I'm totally in agreement with you on this, right? I don't think she'll get anything less than agg manslaughter.

 

[katydid23]

If she's a narcissistic sociopath she wouldn't feel remorse if Caylee died because she was negligent. She'd look at the situation, determine how it would affect her life, and do exactly what she did for 31 days. I get what you're saying, really I do, and I understand your outrage, but those are mostly appeals to emotion, not evidence that can substantiate a murder charge. Again, I think she probably did it, I think she's a terrible, evil person, and I think Caylee's death was a tragedy. I have nightmares about this case, and I've cried so many times in the past few weeks that my nose is raw. (Unlike Casey, my tissues get wet and I'm an ugly, snotty crier). I'm only talking about the law here, and while I respect your opinion, mine is different. I hope you can understand.

I do respect your opinion. You are intelligently working your way through the morass. And I do understand the concern for the law. My father was a defense attorney for 40 years. I do appreciate what you are saying. But I also believe that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is an important subject.

I do believe, not from an emotional place, but from a COMMON SENSE place, that Casey killed her child. What proof do I have? How about the DT's opening statement. WHY would they set forth such a ridiculous version of events if there was a better, more truthful one?

But we can agree to disagree. I think she should get LWOP, but I will be satisfied with whatever this jury lawfully decides.

 

[GeekyGirl]

BTW katydid23, since you mentioned Ted Bundy, have you read "The stranger beside me" by Ann Rule? It's a fascinating book, she actually worked with him at, oddly enough, a suicide prevention hotline and really does a wonderful job examining his life and crimes.

 

[RANCH]

Sorry, getting tired. Was just trying to head off the inevitable "premeditation can happen in seconds" comment. What I was trying to say is that the way the body was handled afterwards doesn't point to someone who had been planning and plotting for months or even days to kill her child (one of the problems I have with chloroform with the intent to kill her). Everything that differentiates manslaughter from first degree murder occurs BEFORE or during the crime. Malice, premeditation, and the willful act. Even if you argue felony murder, you have to prove that a willful act of child abuse was committed. So, yes, those 31 days were bad, and showed a callous disregard for the life of a precious innocent child, but what about them proves BARD that all of the elements of a murder charge are satisfied? To me, it's clear that Caylee was in Casey's care, she died and Casey covered up the death in order to avoid accountability for said death because she knew she'd be held responsible. She waited in prison for three years because a trial was the only way to avoid a long sentence. Even if she did murder her, she could have pled out before now and probably gotten away with 30 years. She wants to walk, no matter what the cost to anyone else. None of that gives me any real insight to what happened that day, just tells me she's a horrible human being. Unfortunately, there's not a charge for that.

Ok. So lets say some one plans to kill some one and their thinking doesn't go beyond that moment.
They then have a body to deal with. They hide the body for a while. Now what to do? Lets bury the body in the back yard like our pets.Shovel. Give up,to hard to dig.Put in trunk of car. Smells. Time to get rid of body. Dumps in nearby woods. End of story.

 

[RANCH]

I meant the person posting under that screen name... ITA with you on eyewitness testimony.

Sorry about the mix up.

 

[katydid23]

BTW katydid23, since you mentioned Ted Bundy, have you read "The stranger beside me" by Ann Rule? It's a fascinating book, she actually worked with him at, oddly enough, a suicide prevention hotline and really does a wonderful job examining his life and crimes.

FUNNY you should mention that. I just recently read excerpts from it on my friends kindle. It made me want to get the book and read the whole thing.

I just read a link in another thread [ cannot remember which one] that had the competency test given to Bundy in his trial. And the shrinks description was exactly like Casey, imo.

The DR said Bundy LOVED being the star of the trial. He enjoyed being at the center, yet did not fully understand the seriousness of the situation. [ him facing the DP.] The Dr felt that Bundy still thought he would 'cross that bridge' when he came to it.

 

[katydid23]

Ok. So lets say some one plans to kill some one and their thinking doesn't go beyond that moment.
They then have a body to deal with. They hide the body for a while. Now what to do? Lets bury the body in the back yard like our pets.Shovel. Give up,to hard to dig.Put in trunk of car.OOPS. Dad almost looked inside. Time to get rid of body. Dumps in nearby woods. Car still smells. Dump it. End of story.

I think that is pretty darn close to her timeline. I added one or two things.

 

[Whisperer]

I see some are saying there is reasonable doubt. There is none. I hope the jury understands the concept of reasonable doubt. This is not "Beyond the shadow of a doubt". Some believe there is doubt. It is normal to have doubt. Is your idea or your doubt reasonable?

The State has presented a logical and complete picture of that happened. The manner of death is homicide. There are only four criteria in Manner of Death:

1. accident.
2. suicide
3. natural causes
4. homicide

No accident was reported or proven
It was not a suicide
Caylee didn't die of natural causes

This leaves the only conclusion to be homicide. Any thing else considered is not reasonable.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I do respect your opinion. You are intelligently working your way through the morass. And I do understand the concern for the law. My father was a defense attorney for 40 years. I do appreciate what you are saying. But I also believe that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is an important subject.

I do believe, not from an emotional place, but from a COMMON SENSE place, that Casey killed her child. What proof do I have? How about the DT's opening statement. WHY would they set forth such a ridiculous version of events if there was a better, more truthful one?

But we can agree to disagree. I think she should get LWOP, but I will be satisfied with whatever this jury lawfully decides.

Thanks for this, as I said, I really do appreciate your thoughts and admire your passion. I also agree that reasonable doubt is an important topic, but to me it's more than common sense. I dated a lawyer once who gave me what I think is the best definition when he said it means "you better be pretty d*** sure", not absolute certainty, but pretty close.

For arguments sake I think the DT's theory can be explained by realizing that, given the evidence, it's one of the only theories that absolves Casey of ANY responsibility in Caylee's death. Every other explanation would almost guarantee that she gets convicted of agg manslaughter, at least, and I truly believe she thinks there's a way for her to walk away from this without any serious time. Magical thinking, I know, but it's the only explanation I can find for this case ever coming to trial. Even if she had murdered her, she could have pled out before now and probably avoided LWOP or the DP.

Kudos to your father, being a defense attorney isn't the most popular position, but it is, IMO one of the most important roles in our legal system, even if the client is guilty. The state must be held accountable for meeting the burden of proof, or else the system fails.

Thank you also, for challenging my opinions. I appreciate being made to examine why I think the way I do, it helps me grow as a person.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Ok. So lets say some one plans to kill some one and their thinking doesn't go beyond that moment.
They then have a body to deal with. They hide the body for a while. Now what to do? Lets bury the body in the back yard like our pets.Shovel. Give up,to hard to dig.Put in trunk of car. Smells. Time to get rid of body. Dumps in nearby woods. End of story.

It requires a huge suspension of disbelief on my part to believe that someone plans for any significantly length of time (more than a day) and never considers that they'll have a body to deal with. Not saying it couldn't happen, but is really likely?

 

[RANCH]

FUNNY you should mention that. I just recently read excerpts from it on my friends kindle. It made me want to get the book and read the whole thing.

I just read a link in another thread [ cannot remember which one] that had the competency test given to Bundy in his trial. And the shrinks description was exactly like Casey, imo.

The DR said Bundy LOVED being the star of the trial. He enjoyed being at the center, yet did not fully understand the seriousness of the situation. [ him facing the DP.] The Dr felt that Bundy still thought he would 'cross that bridge' when he came to it.

Ann Rule is always great but my favorite is "Corpus Delicti" by Diane Wagner. "The shocking TRUE STORY of L.Ewing Scott.convicted of murder without a confession or a corpse"

 

[GeekyGirl]

I see some are saying there is reasonable doubt. There is none. I hope the jury understands the concept of reasonable doubt. This is not "Beyond the shadow of a doubt". Some believe there is doubt? It is normal to have doubt. Is your idea in your doubt reasonable?

The State has presented a logical and complete picture of that happened. The manner of death is homicide. There are only four criteria in Manner of Death:

1. accident.
2. suicide
3. natural causes
4. homicide

No accident was reported or proven
It was not a suicide
Caylee didn't die of natural causes

This leaves the only conclusion to be homicide. Any thing else considered is not reasonable.

I don't think that anyone on the last few pages has argued that it wasn't a homicide, only whether it was manslaughter or murder... When an accident was mentioned, it was in the sense of a criminally negligent accident, which would still be considered a homicide for manner of death.

 

[dilbert]

It requires a huge suspension of disbelief on my part to believe that someone plans for any significantly length of time (more than a day) and never considers that they'll have a body to deal with. Not saying it couldn't happen, but is really likely?

I'm not sure why you think she didn't consider having to deal with a body? Maybe she didn't plan on the body decomposing so fast or the ground in the backyard being so hard to dig?

 

[GeekyGirl]

FUNNY you should mention that. I just recently read excerpts from it on my friends kindle. It made me want to get the book and read the whole thing.

I just read a link in another thread [ cannot remember which one] that had the competency test given to Bundy in his trial. And the shrinks description was exactly like Casey, imo.

The DR said Bundy LOVED being the star of the trial. He enjoyed being at the center, yet did not fully understand the seriousness of the situation. [ him facing the DP.] The Dr felt that Bundy still thought he would 'cross that bridge' when he came to it.

It's a must read... I promise you, you'll love it. I bought in the airport years ago before a cross country flight and couldn't put it down!

 

[GeekyGirl]

I'm not sure why you think she didn't consider having to deal with a body? Maybe she didn't plan on the body decomposing so fast or the ground in the backyard being so hard to dig?

This a response to a long thread of conversation with Ranch... May not make sense out of that context. Sorry.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Ann Rule is always great but my favorite is "Corpus Delicti" by Diane Wagner. "The shocking TRUE STORY of L.Ewing Scott.convicted of murder without a confession or a corpse"

I haven't read this... Thanks for the suggestion, I'll definitely check it out!

 

[dilbert]

This a response to a long thread of conversation with Ranch... May not make sense out of that context. Sorry.

Alrighty then.

 

[Whisperer]

No, they don't HAVE to, if they have enough compelling evidence to prove it without motive. Why did LE not ask Tony if she had any visible injuries that night? There are none in any of the many, many pictures taken in the 31 days, and we saw a lot of Casey's body in those pics. Yes, she could have sedated her, but where's the proof she did? I'm really not saying I don't think that somehow she murdered her, only that no one, including the state really has any idea what happened that day besides Casey, and as frustrating as that is, that leaves room for reasonable doubt.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not arguing that she should or will be acquitted either. There's plenty to support aggravated manslaughter BARD.

With respect....can you explain "Leaves room for reasonable doubt? Are you saying because the cause of death is not known that leaves room for resonable doubt?