Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[OneLostGrl]

Only if you are biased and want there to be reasonable doubt, anyone with half a brain can seen Cindy is a liar and taught her daughter everything she knows.

I'm not biased.. I want there to be proof that Casey and Casey alone murdered Caylee. I think she did kill Caylee I'm just not seeing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of it.

 

[marlame]

This is a capital murder case, it has to be proved "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt". If I'm wrong please correct me. MOO

You are correct...
ALL criminal cases must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt". Civil case's are decided based upon a "proponderance of the evidence".

The guilt-innocence phase in a capital case proceeds almost identically to a non-capital case, with the difference being in selecting a jury. A capital case has an additional phase...the punishment phase where the jury can recommend death as a sentence.

 

[Anais]

The only reasonable doubt I have come to is...I sincerely doubt that JB, CM or DS will have a law career after this case is over...

I believe the jury is going to see through this carp including Juror #4. (can I get a jersey with her number after the trial)

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Mamabear I needed a good laugh..lol!

For me personally it goes like this:

1. ICA was the last person seen with Caylee alive and well.

2. Lets just say that CA is responsible for some of those searches-ICA is still responsible for incriminating nasty searches.

3. 31 Days

4. 3 pieces of duct tape. 1,2,3....she took a moment between each piece of tape and imo that constitutes premeditation.

5. She drove around with her dead daughter in the trunk of her car for 3 days before tossing her out like a bag of garbage in the woods without another thought other than TL.

6. IMHO all those jail calls and visits are quite telling........

Have I left anything else out? I have yet to see this DT show any reasonable. As far as I can see she did it. We may not know exactly how or what came first. But she did do it and this jury will put the pieces together because Caylee has the best SA's fighting for justice for her!

 

[marlame]

I'm not biased.. I want there to be proof that Casey and Casey alone murdered Caylee. I think she did kill Caylee I'm just not seeing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of it.

I believe ICA killed Caylee...but I am still on the fence in determining if it was premeditated.

 

[donnam]

No. I would think Cindy was lying to cover for Casey so she doesn't get sentenced to death. No matter how she explained it, I would go by her work hour record. It says she was at work, so I would believe she was at work.

I did not believe any of the defence experts at all. I think they fumbled through most of their testimony, so as to say "the right things". SA turned most of them around in cross.

Biggest thing.... 31 days, duct tape on face, smell of decomp by how many people now, plus 2 dogs, triple bagged and disgarded like trash.
I cannot get past these things.

 

[Sleuth5]

No.

:no: :no: :no: :no:

 

[Nova]

It is not reasonable to assume this was an accident. KC did not behave as if her child died accidently. I think good hearted people talk themselves into this was an accident because the other possibility is something they can't fathom.

I agree with you. My point above was only that jurors might come to different conclusions; I based that opinion on what posters are saying in various threads here.

From Jeffrey MacDonald to Diane Downs to Scott Peterson, I think there are always people who just can't bring themselves to believe a parent will deliberately kill his or her own child.

That the cause of Caylee's death is uncertain only helps such people avoid the conclusion made obvious by the 31 days and decomp odor.

 

[Anais]

I agree with you. My point above was only that jurors might come to different conclusions; I based that opinion on what posters are saying in various threads here.

From Jeffrey MacDonald to Diane Downs to Scott Peterson, I think there are always people who just can't bring themselves to believe a parent will deliberately kill his or her own child.

That the cause of Caylee's death is uncertain only helps such people avoid the conclusion made obvious by the 31 days and decomp odor.

Nova, excellent post!

 

[Linda7NJ]

No. Not at all.

 

[Nova]

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?

Well summarized, Nali.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem finding 1st degree murder (except that I'm anti-d.p. and couldn't be "death penalty qualified").

But I read a lot of other opinions on various threads here.

 

[Nova]

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

By the same token, some posters seem to think "reasonable doubt" is an easy and clear concept. In my jury experience, it is not.

At least in California, the jury instructions re reasonable doubt use the word "reasonable" to define the term (something that wouldn't pass muster in a Logic 101 class). Something like: "reasonable doubt is the doubt a reasonable person would have..."

Moreover, there's a great post on about page 3 here from pipkins talking about how different people respond to different types of appeals. S/he admits she tends to respond to the emotional appeals in sales pitches. That's perfectly human (what's uncommon is that s/he admits it), but s/he would have to translate that response into something "reasonable." Easier said than done.

Of course a good jury is discussing the concept openly and that helps everyone come to a clearer understanding of what might be "reasonable."

Both of the juries on which I've served wrestled for some time with this issue. (FWIW, one verdict was not guilty, the other guilty.)

(ETA I did NOT mean to imply above that pipkins would make a poor juror because she has feelings. On the contrary, I think s/he'd make an excellent juror because s/he is aware of how and why s/he responds as s/he does!)

 

[Nova]

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.

In my experience, "deliberation" involves not just voicing your opinion, but explaining out loud why you believe what you believe (while others chime in, one hopes, politely). The process can indeed produce surprising opinions from people, opinions quite different from whatever they said in voir dire.

(I've had good experiences in deliberations, meaning I thought the process worked, not that it was "fun". Other WSers have reported horror stories.)

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Sigh. I have to admit I am frustrated by people's insistence that 1st degree (premeditated) murder has been proven by the state. It really really hasn't, IMO. There are mixed testimonies about "how much" chloroform was in the trunk and "where" it came from. There is no proof that Casey used it on Caylee and no items were found that indicate she concocted the chemical recipes found online.

Frankly, there are many cases of a prosecution building "evidence" based on a speculation of a murder scenario. This disturbs me because it already means there is a bias in reading and looking for evidence.

There is NO cause of death. And the State has not shown MOTIVE for premeditated murder.

Chloroform searches don't proof murder. They just don't! And god help us all if they do. And there is conflicting evidence about what that "searched 84 times" actually refers to.

The duct tape is disturbing but if it was accidental and happened within a family that is this high strung, secretive and dysfunctional I can see making a case for Casey wanting to make an accidental death look like a kidnapping--and it's reasonable when you consider the fabrication she created around the "nanny." It is a reasonable proposition based on the Anthony's family dynamics. It doesn't mean it's true either, but it could be just as true based on all the evidence. It could be murder but it could also be an accident gone wrong. I don't know which it is based on the evidence.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I'm not biased.. I want there to be proof that Casey and Casey alone murdered Caylee. I think she did kill Caylee I'm just not seeing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of it.

This. This exactly. It's not that I can't fathom that a mother would kill her child, I'm all too famaliar with the horrific acts of violence some parents are capable of inflicting on their children. I'm not deliberately overlooking the 31 days or the decomp smell, I fully believe she got rid of the body and acted like nothing happened. I hate to use terms like sociopath or pyschopath lightly, but IMO if she isn't one, she's pretty darn close. She appears to lack concience and empathy. But, like the OP, I can't comfortably say that the state has proven murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and I can not agree with, nor advocate for a verdict that isn't founded in evidence. MOO

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

BBM

I'm curious... I keep seeing varations of this everywhere, but I've never heard the context in which the statement was made. Is there a transcript or even a more complete version of what she said?

 

[gladiatorqueen]

This. This exactly. It's not that I can't fathom that a mother would kill her child, I'm all too famaliar with the horrific acts of violence some parents are capable of inflicting on their children. I'm not deliberately overlooking the 31 days or the decomp smell, I fully believe she got rid of the body and acted like nothing happened. I hate to use terms like sociopath or pyschopath lightly, but IMO if she isn't one, she's pretty darn close. She appears to lack concience and empathy. But, like the OP, I can't comfortably say that the state has proven murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and I can not agree with, nor advocate for a verdict that isn't founded in evidence. MOO

Me too.

I also had some issues with Dr. G's testimony because it was so emotionally delivered--which is a reflection of her personal opinion about how Caylee's body was found when deciding it was a homicide rather than science. The truth is, Dr. G is not a BEHAVIORIAL scientist but a medical examiner. I think the defense should have challenged her more about why or how she felt qualified to make an assessment on the human behaviour factor surrounding the remains. JMOO

 

[Nova]

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?

Sounds like somebody has made the process sound more random than it is.

Yes, the two sides will argue about jury instructions (and not just the one on reasonable doubt) and Judge Perry will make the ultimate decision, but there are statewide guidelines and precedents from other cases.

They don't make it up from scratch on every case.

We still don't know how or if JB will get in evidence for his "drowning" theory. I imagine that might well effect how he wants "reasonable doubt' defined for the jurors.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Me too.

I also had some issues with Dr. G's testimony because it was so emotionally delivered--which is a reflection of her personal opinion about how Caylee's body was found when deciding it was a homicide rather than science. The truth is, Dr. G is not a BEHAVIORIAL scientist but a medical examiner. I think the defense should have challenged her more about why or how she felt qualified to make an assessment on the human behaviour factor surrounding the remains. JMOO

I had similar problems with her testimony. I would agree that there is some contextual analysis that goes along with determing manner of death, and in 99% of cases I probably would not have had a problem with her conclusion, but IMO nothing in this case is logical, predictable or rational, which causes problems. I think it's wonderful that she cares so much,and I happen to respect her a great deal, but the statement that "100% of accidental drownings are reported" is baffling to me. I would have liked to ask her "How many pediatric deaths occur where neither the COD nor manner of death can be concluded? In those cases, how many were you able to determine that drowning was NOT the COD?" The answer to that would actually give me information I could use.

I will admit though, as NOVA and Popkins have previously pointed out, I have my bias when it comes to information that sways me. I'm absolutely a sappy, sentimental fool who cries at Hallmark commericals, but when it comes to making factual decisions, I don't want my experts to be emotional at all. We're all prone to interpreting evidence in the way that best supports our conclusions, so I expect my experts to be extra careful in basing their conclusions in fact, not emotion. There are also plenty of people who would have been turned off if Dr. G had been cold and clinical. Neither reaction is right or wrong.

MOO

 

[wallflower67]

At the moment, I think there is reasonable doubt of premeditation. I think the state will take care of that on rebuttal.

 

[Nova]

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.

The overwhelming majority (80% or so) of defendants in the U.S. who get to trial are convicted, so we needn't despair about the system on that score.

http://www.rasmusen.org/papers/overheads/prosecutors-overheads.pdf


I don't think you want juries convicting people based on "gut instincts" alone (though they are certainly allowed to disregard testimony if they get the impression the witness is lying).

Some of the finest people I've known are defense attorneys. Casey Anthony isn't a typical defendant and JB doesn't represent all defense lawyers. Many defense lawyers defend innocent clients and often, because their clients are indigent, do much of the work at the lawyer's own expense.

If you were falsely accused of a crime (it happens), I'm sure you'd be happy to see a defense attorney come walking down the hall.

(ETA I fear I gave the impression in this post that the only "good" defense attorneys are those with innocent clients. That is not the case. Under our system, guilty people deserve a defense as well and somebody has to balance the enormous power of the State. Even guilty people should be correctly charged (not overcharged) and that, too, is part of a defense attorney's job.)