Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[GeekyGirl]

What can cause stiffness in only 10 mins? Seems kind of a short period of time to me.

Temperature is the biggest factor, internal and external. I've never personally seen it in 10 minutes, I think the quickest I've ever seen it set in was about 30 minutes, and that person died of heatstroke... Had a core temp of 108F at time of death. Again, not an expert, just my personal observations.

ETA: this is from an expert http://forensicmd.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/early-postmortem-changes1.pdf

 

[Leah0107]

Respectfully, the decision in this case was based on the fact that the defendant claimed that the victim liked having her entire face covered with duct tape because of her, ahem, unusual bedroom preferences, and died of natural causes during their "playtime". The defendant never claimed that the victim was kidnapped or that duct tape was placed as a staging attempt, so we don't know if they even considered that when they said there was no logical reason for the tape to have been placed after that. Granted, Casey's DT never theorized that either, just pointing out how the ruling might have applied if they had.

The section that refers to what an ME can testify is also a very interesting read...

If I read this correctly, a couple of his assertions were related to what he did prior to disposing of the body without an explanation as to why that were not necessarily related to bedroom playtime. So the statement "the only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical reason or purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead." Seems to me that this conclusion can logically be applied in most cases where duct tape is found on a deceased victim, especially when cause of death may or may not be known and the manner of death is not suicide, natural or accidental.

 

[RANCH]

10 min to several hours. depends on temperature, body fat if there was a struggle etc...
:seeya: in my professional opinion...

Oh. I see you added some info. Ambient temperature? Body fat as in high or low? Struggle with what?

 

[katydid23]

Because she thought she still had a chance to get off completely on the homicide charges? After the 31 days, there was no way she was going to be able to get out of a negligent homicide charge. Besides, she didn't know then that it was going to take three years to go to trial. Impulsive decision, without thinking about the long term consequences... Isn't pretty much her style? Again, I don't buy the DT's story, but this isn't proof of murder to me. MOO

So these are the very things that would make me want to give her a stiff prison sentence. Let's say she accidentally caused her child's death. In the mean time she has done a tremendous amount of serious damage to a dozen or so innocent people, all in her greedy quest to avoid taking even the slightest responsivbility for the death of her child. She tortures innocent strangers, friends, family and anyone coming into her vortex, accusing them of vile evil deeds, all to avoid admitting she forgot to watch her child around the pool?

That in itself is evil behavior and she deserves to be sanctioned for it, imo. So if I were on the jury it would lead me towards aggravated as opposed to accidental manslaughter because it would lead me to believe she had malicious intent. imoo

 

[RANCH]

Temperature is the biggest factor, internal and external. I've never personally seen it in 10 minutes, I think the quickest I've ever seen it set in was about 30 minutes, and that person died of heatstroke... Had a core temp of 108F at time of death. Again, not an expert, just my personal observations.

ETA: this is from an expert http://forensicmd.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/early-postmortem-changes1.pdf

Ok.Thanks. 30 mins. seems more like the low side in the extreme. What would the time period for a child of 2 or 3 yrs old in a pool drowning scenario be expected before obvious stiffening?

 

[Leila]

I don't think the DT has provided any reasonable doubt. Throughout this trial the DT has only made innuendos regarding witnesses, and while the DT suggested that Caylee's death was an accidental drowning they didn't offer any verifiable evidence that a drowning took place. Not only that, but the state's evidence suggests Caylee's death was something more sinister that doesn't allow for an accidental drowning.

There's two factors that cannot be explained away........the duct tape and Casey's behavior in the immediate aftermath of Caylee's death.

 

[Nova24]

I'd like to see Linda emphasize how many times DT said ICA was a liar today and turn it back on them. "DT told you in closing ICA is a liar X amount of times. They are telling you not to believe her. If DT tells you not to trust their own client why should you?"

 

[Jack]

There were a few times when the DT would say something that made me think if someone on the jury latched onto that statement maybe she'll walk on the murder or manslaughter charges... but then he would say something off the wall that made me think he had just shot himself in the foot. I honestly think confusing the jury was part of his strategy.

 

[Leah0107]

I'm new to this forum so please excuse this if it is common knowledge.
1) Did cadaver dogs search the area around the Anthony home let's say at least a mile or more radius? If so, no hits I assume?
2) Duct tape, that was over the mouth and nose of Caylee, nothing but bones and some hair remained when the body was discovered, how can they be sure that the tape was ever over the mouth and nose? After all tissue is gone the duct tape would be released to move, wherever any forces acted on it. It would not re-stick to the bones after all the tissue was gone. And the length's of the duct tape were to short to wrap around the head of Caylee? I guess the tape could have been longer if pieces were stuck end to end, were they?

The measurements were as follows
q62 - 9.5x2
q63 - 7.5x2intertwined w q64
q64- 9.5x2
found sep fr skull
q104-8.5x2 only one no dead hair

This is A LOT of duct tape on the face of a 3-year old child. There is no reasonable explanation is there for this much duct tape to be on the face of a child except to silence of smother?
Actually, the Autopsy/Osteological report indicates that the tape was over the mouth and nasal aperture.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf

 

[GeekyGirl]

If I read this correctly, a couple of his assertions were related to what he did prior to disposing of the body without an explanation as to why that were not necessarily related to bedroom playtime. So the statement "the only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical reason or purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead." Seems to me that this conclusion can logically be applied in most cases where duct tape is found on a deceased victim, especially when cause of death may or may not be known and the manner of death is not suicide, natural or accidental.

I understand what you're saying, and I just went back and read it again. You're correct that was only one of the "theories" that he said the state failed to disprove, so I apologize. If I were arguing from a defense perspective I would say that the cases are different in that entire face appears to have been covered in this one, vs just the mouth and nose and that there was no claim that the duct tape was placed after death as a staging attempt to divert suspicion away from the defendant, so we can't know for sure that they considered EVERY scenario in which duct tape might be placed after death when the ruling was made. Not saying I believe that's why it was there, just what a DT might argue. Thanks for the thoughtful post!

 

[pinup]

It's important to remember that reasonable doubt is subjective, and just because you don't find someone else's doubt to be reasonable, doesn't mean that it's not reasonable to them. This is why our juries have more than person.

While I completely understand the point that this post makes, keep in mind that 'reasonable doubt' is best defined as that doubt in the mind of a reasonable person . By necessity, this standard of reasonableness relies on shared societal values. The jurors must consider what would be reasonable to a set standard of common beliefs and reasoning in society. Although, of course, as mentioned, this is not the same for every person, jurors should keep in mind that "a reasonable person" is the rubric and not their own possible tendencies to alternate thinking.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Ok.Thanks. 30 mins. seems more like the low side in the extreme. What would the time period for a child of 2 or 3 yrs old in a pool drowning scenario be expected before obvious stiffening?

I honestly couldn't say... I've only had a handful of codes with kids who have drowned, and thank goodness, we were able to get a few of them back. Even on the ones who didn't make it, I'm not sure it would be a fair comparison because they were in a controlled environment, vs being in the hot Florida sun.

 

[Leah0107]

I understand what you're saying, and I just went back and read it again. You're correct that was only one of the "theories" that he said the state failed to disprove, so I apologize. If I were arguing from a defense perspective I would say that the cases are different in that entire face appears to have been covered in this one, vs just the mouth and nose and that there was no claim that the duct tape was placed after death as a staging attempt to divert suspicion away from the defendant, so we can't know for sure that they considered EVERY scenario in which duct tape might be placed after death when the ruling was made. Not saying I believe that's why it was there, just what a DT might argue. Thanks for the thoughtful post!

I alway have food for thought when I read yours. EVERY scenario is pretty broad isn't it? I get your argument. I think the defense theory is a 'phantom' theory haha!

 

[Leomoon80]

I'd say yes to the Thread's question, "Did the Defense prove Reasonable Doubt"?

But I'm not on the jury........and if I were, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt., but with jail time. Perhaps 10-15 yrs. Depending upon what the jury is allowed to come back with. The punishment would not be for murder 1 or pre-meditation, as I don't think that has been adequately proven at all.

However, even IF Cayley died via a drowning incident, Casey should not have covered it up and therefore, I'd find that to be punishable by jail time. This time delay in finding the body covered up by all those lies, costs the city of Orlando many man hours time and much distress overall and she needs to pay the piper for at least this much.
All those months searching for the child....and the lies to cover up what actually did occur is why she needs to be punished by the law.

(imo)


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20076577-504083.html

 

[pinup]

And why the heck would the state be doing that if the DT had not yet shared with them their story of the death? Up until 6 weeks ago they were saying it was a kidnapping. So why would the state be expected to check for a pool accident?

EXACTLY! And what's scary is that some are actually criticizing the SA for not testing the remains based on a pool accident! As if JB's wild rants are enough in and of themselves sufficient enough to make falsehoods into truths. As if the SA are mindreaders and should have anticipated all of ICA's possible lies in advance! It boggles the mind.

 

[RANCH]

I honestly couldn't say... I've only had a handful of codes with kids who have drowned, and thank goodness, we were able to get a few of them back. Even on the ones who didn't make it, I'm not sure it would be a fair comparison because they were in a controlled environment, vs being in the hot Florida sun.

See. Your telling a real world story of what happens when a child who can't swim falls in a pool. Someone calls for help. Why? Because sometimes they can be brought back. GeekyGirl ,thank you so much for helping people. Were all in your debt.

 

[GeekyGirl]

While I completely understand the point that this post makes, keep in mind that 'reasonable doubt' is best defined as that doubt in the mind of a reasonable person . By necessity, this standard of reasonableness relies on shared societal values. The jurors must consider what would be reasonable to a set standard of common beliefs and reasoning in society. Although, of course, as mentioned, this is not the same for every person, jurors should keep in mind that "a reasonable person" is the rubric and not their own possible tendencies to alternate thinking.

I love the word rubric! Not often that that you see it used in conversation I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree. It's definitely a slippery topic and one that has been argued countless number of times in the courts. Ultimately we let a group of people judge in the hopes that through collaboration and deliberation they will help each other determine what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[GeekyGirl]

See. Your telling a real world story of what happens when a child who can't swim falls in a pool. Someone calls for help. Why? Because sometimes they can be brought back. GeekyGirl ,thank you so much for helping people. Were all in your debt.

Sadly, I could also tell you horror stories about what parents are capable of doing to their children, either directly or through neglect, but it's true they've never involved drowning in a pool. My days of direct patient care are over, at least for the moment, but I still see what comes our ER doors on a daily basis, and there are definitely days when I leave wondering how some people can be capable of such evil.

 

[RANCH]

I love the word rubric! Not often that that you see it used in conversation I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree. It's definitely a slippery topic and one that has been argued countless number of times in the courts. Ultimately we let a group of people judge in the hopes that through collaboration and deliberation they will help each other determine what is reasonable and what is not.

You love the word rubric? I had to look it up. Had no clue.

 

[GeekyGirl]

You love the word rubric? I had to look it up. Had no clue.

LOL I do, I'm a total word junkie Maybe NerdyGirl would have been a more apt screen name but I liked the alliteration of GeekyGirl