Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Whisperer]

The one I'm worried about is the African American lady who doesn't like to judge people. Hopefully she's not one of the final 12.

I hear ya. The way it works here is the first twelve assigned as jurors are the original panel. I think she is one of the original..*sigh*.

She may surprise us.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I have been trying to put myself in the juror's shoes for the last few days, mainly because some the stuff that has been going on has angered me so much. Besides the fact that I can't get past the 31 days of partying, the jailhouse demeanor, and documented "death smell" in the car, I tend to wonder if the jury will look at Cindy's testimony as a desperate, last-ditch effort to save her daughter's life. Her demeanor has changed from when she took the stand for the prosecution. She was a basket case then, and today she acted very belligerent IMO.

I can envision a scene between her and the DT, where they paint a very grim picture for Casey unless she throws herself on the sword for her daughter. That may be what the gleeful look was between her and Baez the other day.

I really stressed out in the beginning when people were saying they believe that ICA is innocent because it is a circumstantial case.

I was stumped by that b/c when I look at many other cases it seems like there are many people that are convicted when the have even less circumstantial evidence.

From what I understand it is circumstantial evidence vs. direct evidence is a black and white issue. Circumstantial evidence can be very compelling because there is other supporting circumstantial evidence that supports it. Weird, huh? Its only my interpretation of what I read on the internet.

But when you look at the big picture ICA is guilty. When you look at what the defense is saying it could possibly be said that GA looks guilty based on their circumstantial evidence.

The thing is sometimes circumstantial is better than direct evidence because while eye witness are the only direct evidence beyond a confession, social scientists have raised questions about how reliable eye witnesses are. When the evidence that is collected by LE it may be very strong because LE has a methodology to collecting evidence. If people can trust LE they can see them as more credible than any lie, or "spin" the DT presents. If you go up to your average person on the street and ask them what they thing about defense attorneys in general and many of them will say they are full of sugar.

Like Donjeta said when it comes to the phone records, it depends on how much the jury believes in phone records. I think many people take for granted that LE is trustworthy and that everyone must therefore feel the same way. Especially when LE's adversary is obviously a monster.

The methods that LE uses in their investigation are small change compared to the very obvious, warped and frequent behavior of LE in the past. I think its difficult for people to understand that people still have had experiences that make them distrustful of LE. In general I think people here are less like that because we may know more about the history of the courts, LE etc., but I dunno it just scares me a lot right now because I see how juries will be influenced more by that than anything else. I hope they will not.

I hope this ends soon and ICA will be judged guilty and I am able to sleep better at night.

IMO opinion here is where they are different: The circumstantial evidence against ICA is co-oberated by very objective data which is important even if the data is circumstantial, the circumstantial evidence about GA being involved with Caylee's death is not co-oberated with that kind of evidence. That kind of evidence says that GA was not involved.

 

[Nali87]

You are absolutely right that the prosecution doesn't have to prove cause of death. And jurors can disagree about cause as long as they agree about the relevant charge. (I.e., if you think KC used duct tape while I think she used chloroform, so what? As long as we both think she meets the requirements for 1st degree murder.)

But without that proof, it's easier for a jury to hang on murder v. manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. Look at many of the threads here: you can find posters adamant that KC killed her kid in time to get to Tone's to rent a movie; but you can also find a number of people who think the death was an accident that KC covered up out of fear of her mother.

I'm not sure it was a good idea for the State to hang its hat on duct tape and chloroform, but time will tell. I don't pretend I have a better plan.

If it's aggravated child abuse then it's murder in the first degree as well. I think for the jury in the end it will come down to whether it was an accident or abuse/murder (either two is fine with me). I think from the jailvideos we've seen, we don't see a Casey that's afraid of anybody. In the jailhouse tapes, she doesn't talk to Cindy as afraid of her. They were the one tiptoeing around issues, afraid to frustrate Casey. We even see Casey blowing up, saying it was a waste calling Cindy, wanting Tony. From the jailhouse videos I really can't picture a Casey that's scared of Cindy. More of an indignant Casey.

I think it will come down to accident or murder. Since chloroforming your kid is aggravated child abuse it would be murder. And I just don't see the drowning-theory working. A cop really thought it would be better to get rid of a body (jailtime)than report an accident (no jailtime)? The defense really shot themselves in the foot (Thanks Jose, my man) by involving GEORGE in it. I mean, Casey could've panicked (yeah right), but George as well?

 

[marlap]

The one I'm worried about is the African American lady who doesn't like to judge people. Hopefully she's not one of the final 12.

She is...

I hope she will convict...but she worries me too

 

[Nali87]

The only thing that would stop ICA from being convicted on Murder I is a jury member/s that have no idea of the concept of reasonable doubt.

I can't stress enough that this scares the bejezzies out of me because people continually get it confused with "Beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Exactly. Reasonable doubt, manner vs. cause of death and premeditation. A lot of people get confused with those.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I know exactly what you mean - your probably like me go through life on your instincts, feelings and knowing whats right and wrong instinctively. If what you mean is that sometimes the witnesses (especially experts) OVER explain things and lose the point I'm totally with you on that side. I glaze over and just want them to finish and tell me what they found. The prosecution usually simplify this at the end for me but not always and I worry sometimes that the jurors will 'blank out' just like me

Many years ago I did a sales training course that dealt with the different personalities and how we 'buy' into stuff being said when buying a product and our ultimate decision processess (remember the Prosecution and defense are both 'selling' their side to the jury)

Some people buy into to emotion (me), some to no nonsense facts, some to visual aids and some to audio. Im trying to simplify it but the jury will be made up of a mixture of these personalities and when deliberations start the ones who love facts will interact with the ones who use emotions and will each input their views on the others.

I think the Prosecution has covered everybody on the jury, they have presented facts, pictures, audio and emotion.

Ya, but sometimes that emotional reaction I have is a double edged sword. My life has been a journey that is about trusting my inner voice, my feelings, and I have been very successful at it.

In cases where I see people like the defense lawyers coming at it from a very non-emotional place I question if my opinion is based on nothing more than how I feel about ICA, the A's etc. I wonder if I am going to the same extreme they are even if we're at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Its like I get even more emotional because I am so emotional to begin with... whatevers going on my quest to be objective is frantic at times because it is emotionally driven as well.

I am very, very emotional that there is justice for Caylee, even more emotional than I am that who I think is guilty (ICA and ICA ALONE) is judged so. I don't know how to explain that.

I like what you said about what the jurors could tune out to. Makes me think that the prosecution is very experienced and know what they are doing.

I am so impressed with Linda DB. She rocks! :rocker:

Over the weekend I was looking at JVM and thinking that she looks like Suzi Quatro. Not so much how she looked when she was on Happy Days but when she's on stage because she is still rockin' the stage in Europe.

So I was at youtube to find the video of her and Fonzie in the episode where she sings "Do The Fonzie".

I also found a vid of TOM HANKS playing a guy that wanted to beat up Fonzie. He was desperate about it doing all this kung foo stuff making an idiot of himself. At 3.39 Fonzie says "take your best shot" and he goes all Matrix out Arnold's window. And just when Hanks is celebrating his victory when........

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA_hNoGDM4Y&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA_hNoGDM4Y&feature=related[/ame]

She may react but she never lets the DT or anyone see her sweat.

 

[Chili Fries]

Reasonable doubt as to what? Premeditation? To one or two jurors probably so. And that's all they could hope for.

There's also the issue of child abuse, which is necessary for a first degree murder conviction if premeditation isn't shown. I agree with AZlawyer and GeekyGirl that a manslaughter verdict may happen because the prosecution hasn't convinced the jury of premeditation or abuse.

The two big issues I see hanging over the trial along those lines at this point are the early witnesses who testified they thought Casey was a good mom, and Cindy's testimony about the chloroform searches. Those undercut the state's attempts to prove premeditation or abuse.

I want to see Casey get LWOP but I won't be surprised if she just gets decades in prison because of a verdict of manslaughter.

 

[Nali87]

There's also the issue of child abuse, which is necessary for a first degree murder conviction if premeditation isn't shown. I agree with AZlawyer and GeekyGirl that a manslaughter verdict may happen because the prosecution hasn't convinced the jury of premeditation or abuse.

The two big issues I see hanging over the trial along those lines at this point are the early witnesses who testified they thought Casey was a good mom, and Cindy's testimony about the chloroform searches. Those undercut the state's attempts to prove premeditation or abuse.

I want to see Casey get LWOP but I won't be surprised if she just gets decades in prison because of a verdict of manslaughter.

MountainKat's post about the chloroform searches sums my opinion about it perfectly. It's the first page of today's trial post. I might add a link in a second. Abuse is always hidden though. I think if the jury disregards the drowning-theory, they'll have no choice but to convict on 1st degree murder. Chloroform your kid just that one time, is abuse. Even if that's the first time you've done it. I don't think the prosecution has to prove prior abuse. In my opinion the one question this will center about is whether Caylee died by drowning or not and (grandpa and )mom really decided to deny Caylee a dignified resting place. All the other scenario's lead to murder.

ETA:[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6749136&postcount=10"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.06.24 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-seven)[/ame]

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I've been concerned about reasonable doubt because I never knew that it is defined differently by different courts, and all the stuff about both sides and the judge get together before the deliberations and agree to how it is going to be defined.

Don't understand how reasonable doubt in a criminal trial can be considered relative terms when I always thought it was a fundamental concept in all courts dealing with a criminal case.

If ICA is found guilty does the definition of it give the DT any room for an appeal, like if they said they were coerced into agreeing something. In normal circumstances I can't see a lawyer being coerced, but JB seems so clueless its believable even if its not true, YKIM?

Would that fall into the general catagory that JB's incompetence as it relates to an appeal?

 

[Chili Fries]

MountainKat's post about the chloroform searches sums my opinion about it perfectly. It's the first page of today's trial post. I might add a link in a second. Abuse is always hidden though. I think if the jury disregards the drowning-theory, they'll have no choice but to convict on 1st degree murder. Chloroform your kid just that one time, is abuse. Even if that's the first time you've done it. I don't think the prosecution has to prove prior abuse. In my opinion the one question this will center about is whether Caylee died by drowning or not (grandpa and )mom really decided to deny Caylee a dignified resting place. All the other scenario's lead to murder.

ETA:Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.06.24 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-seven)

That's a good post by MountainKat, it just depends on whether the jury takes Cindy's testimony at face value. I agree the chlorophyll search doesn't make sense if you think about it...every plant contains chlorophyll and not all olants make dogs sick so obviously you would search the individual plant, not the chemical they all have. But Cindy did testify to it under oath and it's up to the jury to believe her or not.

The state does have to make jurors believe premeditation or abuse (the death must have occurred during the commission of a crime, in this case child abuse, for the murder charges). It really depends on the amount of doubt jurors have about what really took place, and there is definitely some fog there about the chloroform since they don't have Casey buying it or any evidence of it in toxicology testing of the remains.

 

[Nefriahaia]

She may surprise us.

raying: raying: raying: raying: raying: raying: raying:

 

[pcrum12]

IMO yes. The only things I'm 100% sure of right now are
1. Casey is a liar
2. Caylee's body was in her trunk
3. There was duct tape around Caylee's mouth.

Why was there duct tape on the baby's mouth?

Who put her in Casey's trunk?

Why did someone kill her?

IMO

I agree with most of what you state. Bolded by me #3 they still haven't proven to me. So in my opinion, still alot of reasonable doubt.

 

[pcrum12]

If it's aggravated child abuse then it's murder in the first degree as well. I think for the jury in the end it will come down to whether it was an accident or abuse/murder (either two is fine with me). I think from the jailvideos we've seen, we don't see a Casey that's afraid of anybody. In the jailhouse tapes, she doesn't talk to Cindy as afraid of her. They were the one tiptoeing around issues, afraid to frustrate Casey. We even see Casey blowing up, saying it was a waste calling Cindy, wanting Tony. From the jailhouse videos I really can't picture a Casey that's scared of Cindy. More of an indignant Casey.

I think it will come down to accident or murder. Since chloroforming your kid is aggravated child abuse it would be murder. And I just don't see the drowning-theory working. A cop really thought it would be better to get rid of a body (jailtime)than report an accident (no jailtime)? The defense really shot themselves in the foot (Thanks Jose, my man) by involving GEORGE in it. I mean, Casey could've panicked (yeah right), but George as well?

The only thing that may help defense create reasonable doubt to what I bolded above is if they infer that George molested Casey so therefore he may have molested Caylee and if he had called 911 and an autopsy was done it would be evident that she (Caylee) was molested.

 

[downport]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt ?

Here's the problem; what's reasonable to some is clearly beyond the realm of reason to people with common sense.

We live amongst people who believe the moon landing never happened, President Bush & VP Cheney in conspiracy with the military planted bombs in the WTC & Pentegon so they could invade other countries & give oil fields to their buddies, that John McCain was 'Manchurian Canidate' after being brainwhashed in Vietnam, that Obama is a secrete Muslim anti-Christ, & the Denver Airport is the headquarters of the 'New World Order'.

God only knows who's on this jury. Pray they have common sense or else there will be a hung jury & we' be doing this again. It only takes one.

The SA needs to go back to the tapes over & over & over. The lies don't lie. Nobody covers up an accident & then has a " grand ole time".

 

[AnotherGladysKravitz]

Doubt, maybe. Reasonable doubt, nope.

 

[Soulmagent]

Yorkies munching on bamboo and an eleven yr old stain in the trunk the size of gas can is ridiculous.

She never searched for dogs eating bamboo buy went for the chlorophyll. I thought it was casey up there...my God! They are enmeshed!

Now GA used to detail out cars and they both are cleaning nuts to the max. He would never have allowed that stain to sit in that car for more than a day. He is OCD about all the cars in his family and spends his weekends cleaning and detailing them out.

I refuse to fall for any of the garbage cindy is spilling. Baez looked thrilled and was giggling to himself when LDB was firing back. ICA was annoyed at LDB (what else is new?) and said "Wow!" when LDB spoke of cindy's meds. Her meds are something cindy likes to use as an excuse. Cindy is the only one I know who gets meds that improve her long term memory. I guess she is special.

I say the only thing that will come of today is the jury should see through cindy (she is transparent) and casey will be sentenced on Murder I with a good possibility of receiving the DP...all thanks to cindy.

The stain that was in the car when they got it was not the gas can stain,she refered to two stains while on the stand.

 

[TxLady2]

I totally understand where you maybe coming from when it comes to those doubts. Some times I think for me they are related to the knot in your stomach that twists tighter sometimes because I'm examining this case six ways to sunday?

I guess kinda like worrying that something horrible, yet improbable will happen to a loved one who is flying and I hear there is a blizzard where they are going? When I've done that its cuz I care about the loved one, not because statistics say it is common occurence? I don't think statistics support that. I realize that so the brain spaz is very temporary. YKWIM?

IMO that doesn't concern me much at times because people on WS digest information much differently than the general public and quite possibly jurors do. We can see where the prosecution is vulnerable even when others won't because of how we look at the evidence?

But that is not always my reaction sometimes I worry because the jurors aren't processing info like WSers, ya know? Like how we evaluate scientific opinions based on the method the expert used to come to that conclusion, the experience of said expert etc. etc.

I get scared when I see that the public seems to not use that criteria to evaluate an expert. Are the jurors going to do that?

I just go up and down.

My friend says that I go until I have analysis paralysis and by brain just can't take it anymore . My boyfriend is a massive goof ball, its one of the reasons I love him when he sees me like this he does a massive comic intervention. He is taping SNLs that I haven't seen for this very purpose. Not that he needs to, he seriously is funny on his own.

Supposedly these jurors did not follow this case and only know what has been presented so far in trial. How on earth is it fair to ask if WE have any reasonable doubt, since most everyone here knows much more than has been brought out in the trial so far? WE may not have any doubt but to some of them, they may believe the state has not proved their case... we just don't know at this point.
If you listen to the TH's, I've heard this mentioned several times... juries want to know the how, when, where, and why. Some of them may not believe that the state has presented sufficient evidence that Casey deliberately killed Caylee or that this was not an accident.
And I wonder if the forensics and the scientific stuff hasn't bored most of them into a coma by now. I think some things can be a little overdone, but that's just me. With Baez trying to dispute the experts, some of this stuff has been brought up numerous times and it's getting a little old.
The main point is, the jury is getting tired and they want this over with. As do I.

 

[beachgal58]

No, I dont think the defense has created reasonable doubt at all.

For me its mostly caseys behavior during the 31 days, and she wasnt the one to call 911

JAILHOUSE tapes. Nuff said there.
She is a TOTAL LIAR and now I see her mother the same way.

I had the same feeling about Scott Peterson on his behavior and I knew just from seeing him and how he acted, that he was guilty. Same thing with casey.

This whole legal system is flawed and it would not surprise me if she walked even though MOST people with any common sense knows she killed her daughter.

Cindy lied yesterday. I dont care what her so called lawyer said. She threw her granddaughter under the bus to try and free her murdering daughter. Where is the love for caylee? I dont see it with this family. That poor kid!

Oh, and defence attorneys are despicable. Especially Baez, and mason. Ugh.

 

[beachgal58]

Supposedly these jurors did not follow this case and only know what has been presented so far in trial. How on earth is it fair to ask if WE have any reasonable doubt, since most everyone here knows much more than has been brought out in the trial so far? WE may not have any doubt but to some of them, they may believe the state has not proved their case... we just don't know at this point.
If you listen to the TH's, I've heard this mentioned several times... juries want to know the how, when, where, and why. Some of them may not believe that the state has presented sufficient evidence that Casey deliberately killed Caylee or that this was not an accident.
And I wonder if the forensics and the scientific stuff hasn't bored most of them into a coma by now. I think some things can be a little overdone, but that's just me. With Baez trying to dispute the experts, some of this stuff has been brought up numerous times and it's getting a little old.
The main point is, the jury is getting tired and they want this over with. As do I.

See? Thats another problem I have with this justice system. The jury should have access to ALL the information like we do. If she is so innocent, then why hide anything? If I were a juror and let someone like her go free, and then to see the WHOLE picture afterwards, would PISS me off!

 

[Eidetic]

Nothing about the defense is reasonable in my opinion, in fact it is an insult to one's intelligence.