Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[MissJames]

The body was decapitated, the forearms were missing, the right foot was gone, and the left leg from the knee down was missing. Later reports from the medical examiner revealed that there were injuries, two cracked ribs, that happened at or about the time of death.

There is absolutely nothing similar to the way the bodies were found. The only similarity was decomposition.

Both bodies were dumped

Both bodies were missing for months

Both bodies were impacted by the elements (water,heat)

Both bodies were most likely fed upon (crabs,fish,sharks,/ racoons,dogs,etc....)

 

[Who_What_When]

The body falls apart upon decomposition. There was no evidence that SP mutilated Laci.

I was asked how the body was found and told that it was similar to the way Caylee's body was found. This is how it was found which is different than how Caylee's body was found.

 

[Who_What_When]

In regards to #2:

a. yes, the death occurred as a consequence of her placing duct tape on the baby's mouth.
b. Yes, the death was a consequence the defendant attempting to get rid of her child
c. yes, the occurred as a consequence of the defendent leaving the child and not calling for help to save the child's life..total disregard.

If you believe that the duct tape was used to kill her than yes you could find her guilty. That's what I've been saying all along! I don't believe BARD that duct tape or chloroform was used and everyone seems to have a problem with that. I asked those who have stated they aren't convinced that duct or chloroform was used, how they can convict her of first degree murder.

 

[Bon]

If you believe that the duct tape was used to kill her than yes you could find her guilty. That's what I've been saying all along! I don't believe BARD that duct tape or chloroform was used and everyone seems to have a problem with that. I asked those who have stated they aren't convinced that duct or chloroform was used, how they can convict her of first degree murder.

How do you think Caylee died???

 

[pcrum12]

I totally respect Dr G's description of how the duct tape was placed on Caylees face and mouth................no way did duct tape just happen to float pass and stick on her nose and mouth...nonsense! And the duct tape was linked to the A's house, a rare brand of tape at that....

I don't recall seeing any evidence that that tape was on the mouth and nose. It was stuck on one side of the hair mat from what I understand. MOO

 

[Chewy]

For those of you who are saying they don’t need to know how Caylee died, they don’t need to know it was from chloroform or the duct tape and that they are absolutely sure this wasn’t an accident, that Casey murdered Caylee because of the 31 days, well please explain to me how you get pass #2 (a, b or c) on the instructions the jury will receive for them to determine first degree murder, because without passing #2, you can’t get to #3.

1. Victim is dead.

2.
a. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was engaged in the commission of crime alleged.
b. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was attempting to commit crime alleged.
c. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant, or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of crime alleged.

3. Defendant was the person who actually killed victim.

Because she's HER MOTHER> and the VICTIM was a toddler. Is it really that hard to put together?

WHO ELSE could be responsible that would add up to the not reporting it for 31 days? Why else would she have reacted the way she did? What sense does it make?

I mean you are acting like Caylee was a wayward teenager or something. Caylee was a BABY.........if a person is 100 percent for her well being and the baby goes missing for 31 days it's completely ridiculous to suggest that the mother is not the one responsible here.

There was no father involved. There were two other grandparents desperately seeking the child without even knowing something this horrible had happened.

I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand.

 

[aeneas1]

I don't know how else to explain this as I have tried several times... it's not that some of us don't believe that she is guilty, it's that under the law it will be hard to find her guilty of first degree murder UNLESS you believe it was proven that Casey MURDERED Caylee and without having any idea how this might have happened you can't conclusively say she was murdered.

There are two major differences between this case and the Scott Peterson case:

In the Scott Peterson case they might not have known how Laci died BUT they did know that she was murdered by the way her body was found.

The SA proved that Scott Peterson had a motive for wanting Laci dead which added to his guilt.

Neither of these can be said in this case.

it was determined that laci's manner of death was homicide and cause of death undetermined, no? sounds familiar.

 

[Who_What_When]

Both bodies were dumped

Both bodies were missing for months

Both bodies were impacted by the elements (water,heat)

Both bodies were most likely fed upon (crabs,fish,sharks,/ racoons,dogs,etc....)

again, I was asked "how laci's body was found that differs from how caylee's was found", and I did. I didn't go into the whole case about Scott Peterson and I don't plan too. Both cases have circumstantial evidence. I never argued this, and I'm glad that the jury was able to find SP guilty. It seems that since I'm not convinced that Caylee was murdered by duct tape or chloroform , everyone feels the needs to bring up the SP case to prove me wrong.

 

[Who_What_When]

it was determined that laci's manner of death was homicide and cause of death undetermined, no? sounds familiar.

Wow, really? Just because I have a difference of opinion?

There were also reports from the ME that showed she had two cracked ribs. Is that similar?

 

[GeekyGirl]

The body falls apart upon decomposition. There was no evidence that SP mutilated Laci.

They were able to determine that there was evidence of antemortem trauma on Laci's body.

 

[GeekyGirl]

it was determined that laci's manner of death was homicide and cause of death undetermined, no? sounds familiar.

No, actually it doesn't. It's like saying a Porsche and a gremlin are similar because they have 4 wheels and an engine, the case's were very different.

 

[Bon]

Because she's HER MOTHER> and the VICTIM was a toddler. Is it really that hard to put together?

WHO ELSE could be responsible that would add up to the not reporting it for 31 days? Why else would she have reacted the way she did? What sense does it make?

I mean you are acting like Caylee was a wayward teenager or something. Caylee was a BABY.........if a person is 100 percent for her well being and the baby goes missing for 31 days it's completely ridiculous to suggest that the mother is not the one responsible here.

There was no father involved. There were two other grandparents desperately seeking the child without even knowing something this horrible had happened.

I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand.

Great post!
Common sense, either you have it or you don't!!!:crazy:

 

[TrY]

The only thing I saw that I think could lead jurors to have questions about premeditation is the differences in the two computer reports, Net Analysis and Cacheback, as to how many times the sci-spot.com website (to learn how to make chloroform) was visited. Was that sci-spot.com site visited once and Myspace visited 84 times as per the Net Analysis report, or was the the sci-spot.com visited 84 times as per Cacheback? I think that's where the jurors will struggle in deciding whether there is premeditation or not.

I always thought that the computer forensics would be important in this case. What I find astonishing is that the defense team did not look at the copy of the whole Anthony desktop hard drive that they had in their possesion for nearly 3 years to look at more than just the March 2008 searches for chloroform, and that they took their own computer expert off their own witness list so they could not put on a computer expert during their own case in chief. If they had a computer expert, they surely would have known that CA's testimony about her doing the chloroform searches would have been contradicted by CA's Gentiva work computer due to HIPAA laws.

 

[Who_What_When]

Because she's HER MOTHER> and the VICTIM was a toddler. Is it really that hard to put together?

WHO ELSE could be responsible that would add up to the not reporting it for 31 days? Why else would she have reacted the way she did? What sense does it make?

I mean you are acting like Caylee was a wayward teenager or something. Caylee was a BABY.........if a person is 100 percent for her well being and the baby goes missing for 31 days it's completely ridiculous to suggest that the mother is not the one responsible here.

There was no father involved. There were two other grandparents desperately seeking the child without even knowing something this horrible had happened.

I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand.

I give up! OMG! AGAIN, I THINK CASEY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAYLEE'S DEATH!!! I NEVER EVER SAID I DIDN'T. Look at the law, that is what I'm talking about. I am not going by my emotions, my thoughts, my feelings, I'll looking at #2 on the jury instructions and without having an idea of how she killed her I wouldn't be able to convict her of 1st degree murder.

Taking your quote: "I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand." ITA! Why is it so hard to understand the jury instructions?

 

[GeekyGirl]

The only thing I saw that I think could lead jurors to have questions about premeditation is the differences in the two computer reports, Net Analysis and Cacheback, as to how many times the sci-spot.com website (to learn how to make chloroform) was visited. Was that sci-spot.com site visited once and Myspace visited 84 times as per the Net Analysis report, or was the the sci-spot.com visited 84 times as per Cacheback? I think that's where the jurors will struggle in deciding whether there is premeditation or not.

I always thought that the computer forensics would be important in this case. What I find astonishing is that the defense team did not look at the copy of the whole Anthony desktop hard drive that they had in their possesion for nearly 3 years to look at more than just the March 2008 searches for chloroform, and that they took their own computer expert off their own witness list so they could not put on a computer expert during their own case in chief. If they had a computer expert, they surely would have known that CA's testimony about her doing the chloroform searches would have been contradicted by CA's Gentiva work computer due to HIPAA laws.

Excellent point. and props for getting the acronym for HIPAA correct.

 

[Who_What_When]

How do you think Caylee died???

I don't know. That's my argument. I can't say it was murder because I don't know what killed her. I do think it has been proven that Casey was responsible by how she hid the body and all her actions afterward which leads to aggravated manslaughter.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The thing that seems weird to me is that people seem to think that if we can't prove 100 percent how she did it, then we must acquit. That's the kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off.


I mean COME ON, ok we don't NEED to know exactly HOW she did it to know that she did it. Just like Scott Peterson.

It's almost as if people are so caught up in the details that they are missing the forest for the trees.

Think of the situation as "innocently" as you possibly can..........

Poor girl screws up and over doses her kid. She tries to cover it up by pretending she's been kidnapped. So she spins this story that Zanny has her and wants it to go on for a bit to put distance between herself and her daughter and maybe have the cops thinking Zanny took her and went to Mexico.

Heck maybe she even was influenced by the Madelaine McCain story and thought she'd be seen as a victim in all of this.

So she lets it go and go and go.


Ok maybe I could believe that. Maybe I could also believe that in her stupid state she thought she'd be treated like the McCains and become famous and get lots of money. I mean did she do anything different than they might have done? Drugged her child and went out and then the child is missing?

So all of this seems to maaaaybe make sense. Until you get to the point that she didn't report her missing for 31 days and that she was out having a good time.

Even if you want to say that she was in a sense of detachment, or that she was in denial, whatever you want to say, it is not humanly possible for someone who loves their child to have gone 31 days without losing it and snapping at some point. At some point when confronted she would have broken down. And it is three years later and she still hasn't.

So that in and of itself speaks volumes.

Who's arguing that she should be acquitted? I've NEVER said that. We're talking about the difference between manslaughter and homicide based of the elements of the crime per the Florida statute.

 

[Who_What_When]

Great post!
Common sense, either you have it or you don't!!!:crazy:

So I'm guessing you're saying I don't? Just because I believe she is guilty of aggravated manslaughter and not first degree murder?

 

[GeekyGirl]

Great post!
Common sense, either you have it or you don't!!!:crazy:

Respectfully, that's extremely insulting.

 

[Jstc4caylee]

I give up! OMG! AGAIN, I THINK CASEY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAYLEE'S DEATH!!! I NEVER EVER SAID I DIDN'T. Look at the law, that is what I'm talking about. I am not going by my emotions, my thoughts, my feelings, I'll looking at #2 on the jury instructions and without having an idea of how she killed her I wouldn't be able to convict her of 1st degree murder.

Taking your quote: "I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand." ITA! Why is it so hard to understand the jury instructions?

I totally understand what you are saying, and its what scares me the most..
I have seen the Jury instructions that HHJP gave, specific to this case, but I do not know what the standard instructions or Nor do any of us know what instructions the lawyers are writing in as well.

So,if you can share what you know exactly the law says, that would be helpful. But this a a circumstantial case, and it does not have to be proved with out a shadow of a doubt, but a reasonable doubt. There is NOTHING reasonable about what the defense showed , (yes, I know they do not have to prove burden) but...the defense blew any other possible reasonable doubt out the door...it can either be death by drowning, or whatever the States says.....IMTOSO ......lol