Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[aafromaa]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

doubt yes - reasonable no

no question the jurors will have some doubt because of all that is not known - such as the way Caylee died - the defense didn't really create that doubt - it simply exists - but is it reasonable doubt?

I doubt the jurors will think there is anything reasonable about a little girl found in the woods discarded like garbage with duct tape covering her mouth and nose

I doubt the jurors will think there is anything reasonable in the theory that a meter reader had Caylee's body for months and finally hid it in the woods just before leading LE there

I doubt the jurors will think there is anything reasonable about a mother who rents videos with her boyfriend and spends the night with him on the very day that her daughter dies in a pool accident and never mentions it

I doubt the jurors will think there is anything reasonable about a mother who goes on with her partying and social activities and tells her family and friends that her little girl is with the nanny for a month after she dies and never gives any indication that there is anything wrong until she is confronted by her mother 31 days later

I doubt the jurors will think there is anything reasonable about telling your family & LE that your daughter was kidnapped if you knew she drowned in a pool and that your father knew it too

I doubt that the jurors will think there is anything reasonable about driving around for days with the body of your daughter decomposing in your car

I doubt that the jurors will come back with a not guilt verdict - BUT I didn't think the jurors would do that in the OJ & MJ trials either - so the bottom line is that I doubt that we will know what the jurors will do until the verdict is read in court

 

[gxm]

There is no good reason according to HER, but she is not a behavioral scientist.

Again, I am not a fan of first degree murder when there is no hard evidence. I don't agree with the Scott Peterson verdict either for what it's worth.

Please clarify. Are you saying that there is a good reason to duct tape a child's nose and mouth? It is not just Dr. G who believes that duct taping a child in such a manner shows abusive, or evil, intent. IMO the average person would be hard pressed to come up with a benevolent reason to abuse a toddler in such a manner.

 

[Who_What_When]

The state has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt.

31 days (or never if it was up to Casey)
bagged and dumped
dead body in trunk
Blockbuster tape
Casey making plans for future without restrictions

These five things alone do it for me.

I don't even need the scientific evidence to convince me that there was a body in the trunk, the witnesses who smelled it convinced me.

I can discount the duct tape and chloroform, toss them due to "conflicting" testimony, and still be convinced. Computer mess, whatever.
I don't know how she did it, and haven't been convinced of that by the state, but she did it. I do believe she was smothered in some way, she died due to not being able to breath.

JMHO!

If the duct tape and chloroform is discounted then I don’t see how the jury can convict her of first degree murder. I don’t feel that the SA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is how Caylee died. I guess it really depends on which witnesses the jury chooses to believe, but when you add the other possibilities such as a drowning, this helps to create a reasonable doubt.

Although I believe that Casey is responsible for Caylee’s death, if you look at what the instruction will be for the jury on first degree murder, I think they have only proven number 1 so far.

To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Victim is dead (Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable)

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.

Give 3a if defendant actual perpetrator.

3. a. Defendant was the person who actually killed the victim.

 

[gxm]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The defense does NOT have a duty to disprove the allegations. If the prosecution doesn't meet its burden, it matters not whether the defense says anything at all.

In theory, the defense can sit and knit, and never say a word except "Your Honor, the defense rests." Not likely, of course.

I disagree. The defense has a duty, not to the state but to the defendant, to disprove allegations. JMHO and I'm not a lawyer and am not commenting on legality; I'm commenting on what I consider to be the DT's moral obligation.

 

[Nova]

The thing that makes me think she would do something like faking a kidnapping is, oddly enough, her crazy defense in the face of the death penalty. To me, a logical, rational person would look at the situation and see that the state has a pretty solid case for manslaughter, at minimum, and plead out. The fact that she'd rather roll the dice with her life than admit any culpability makes staging a kidnapping to escape responsibility seem plausible. MOO

Interesting point.

I do wonder why, if there was an accident and cover-up, it didn't all unravel on Day 31 when LE came in to respond to the 911 call.

 

[gamom]

Yes, the defense has made me doubt this could ever be an accident. I am now sorry I gave KC the benefit of the doubt early on in this case.

 

[ladylurker]

The state has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt.

31 days (or never if it was up to Casey)
bagged and dumped
dead body in trunk
Blockbuster tape
Casey making plans for future without restrictions

These five things alone do it for me.

I don't even need the scientific evidence to convince me that there was a body in the trunk, the witnesses who smelled it convinced me.

I can discount the duct tape and chloroform, toss them due to "conflicting" testimony, and still be convinced. Computer mess, whatever.

I don't know how she did it, and haven't been convinced of that by the state, but she did it. I do believe she was smothered in some way, she died due to not being able to breath.

JMHO!

i completely agree with everything you said (except the last sentence about being smothered; i personally am not entirely sure HOW she died).

whatever doubt the DT tries to inject, they cannot take away the fact that caylee was not reported missing for a month, that there is no evidence of casey doing anything remotely close to looking for her during that month, that casey was made to make the report by cindy and not of her own accord, that she did not show any signs of worry/remorse for her "missing" child or grief for her dead child (and in fact she seemed to be genuinely HAPPY about everything except the fact that she got in trouble), that everyone who could corroborate casey's story turned out to be fictional, that she did not help with the search at all and instead purposely gave false information to make the search harder.

the duct tape and chloroform and computer searches don't matter to me as much, and that's where the DT created doubt for me. if i do not consider those at all, and if i think back to how i felt at the time before i knew about those 3 things, i still find casey guilty. i don't care if she was sexually abused or raised to lie. many people are sexually abused and come from rampantly dysfunctional families full of secrets and lies, which is unfortunate, but no excuse for either killing your child or neglecting her to the point of death and then trying to cover it up, blame and mislead others, etc etc etc.

just my opinion, of course!

 

[coloradoteacher]

I'll tell you what convinces me of premeditated murder and not some sort or accident or even manslaughter:
The fact that HOURS after the death of her child, she was having sex with her boyfriend and snuggling up watching movies. If it was premeditated, she WANTED Caylee dead and would not be upset by her death but relieved and maybe even happy.
If it was on accident or even in a moment of rage, at the very least she would be worried and restless. She was not. Most normal people would be distraught and even if she wanted to cover it up, would want to be alone to not give away her emotions.
DO NOt tell me she is unemotional for any sort of abuse or family dynamics. She has shown several times during her trial that she is emotional, with today's crying for LA being the most recent.
This alone tells me she murdered her child and did it intentionally.
No reasonable doubt no matter what smoke screens are put out.

 

[Nova]

I disagree. The defense has a duty, not to the state but to the defendant, to disprove allegations. JMHO and I'm not a lawyer and am not commenting on legality; I'm commenting on what I consider to be the DT's moral obligation.

Well, I was commenting legally because the poster to whom I responded laid out the obligations of each side as if s/he were defining them legally.

Obviously, the defense has an ethical obligation to do what's best for the defendant, but that doesn't necessarily mean disproving anything.

It isn't the most common defense, but neither is it unknown for a defense attorney to merely rest without proving anything. The lawyer then argues during closing arguments that the State has failed to meet its burden.

Even rarer, sometimes a judge agrees and dismisses the charges when the prosecution rests, without the defense mounting a case or making an argument.

***

The reason this matters is because we have pages here of people talking about the ineptitude of the defense team. That may be true, but it won't matter to a good juror, because the issue is NOT which side did the better job or whether the DT disproved anything.

 

[ladylurker]

I disagree. The defense has a duty, not to the state but to the defendant, to disprove allegations. JMHO and I'm not a lawyer and am not commenting on legality; I'm commenting on what I consider to be the DT's moral obligation.

this is a great point!!! she is facing the DEATH PENALTY. i completely agree that their moral obligation is to try to save her butt by presenting evidence and information that creates doubt. it does not help the defendant if her legal team does not have a single piece of evidence or information in her favor at all. i know they are not required to put on a defense at all, but considering she is facing death i would say her attorneys are morally obligated to do what they can so that she isn't killed by the state for this. she has the right to a proper defense.

 

[Nova]

I'll tell you what convinces me of premeditated murder and not some sort or accident or even manslaughter:
The fact that HOURS after the death of her child, she was having sex with her boyfriend and snuggling up watching movies. If it was premeditated, she WANTED Caylee dead and would not be upset by her death but relieved and maybe even happy.
If it was on accident or even in a moment of rage, at the very least she would be worried and restless. She was not. Most normal people would be distraught and even if she wanted to cover it up, would want to be alone to not give away her emotions.
DO NOt tell me she is unemotional for any sort of abuse or family dynamics. She has shown several times during her trial that she is emotional, with today's crying for LA being the most recent.
This alone tells me she murdered her child and did it intentionally.
No reasonable doubt no matter what smoke screens are put out.

Beautifully and clearly put. Very convincing. Somebody in the jury room needs to say exactly this.

(I bet you're a great teacher.)

 

[faefrost]

Yes, I do believe the defense has created reasonable doubt. I no longer believe KC will get 1st degree murder. Maybe the lesser charge if the State is lucky. I pray they can somehow ressurect their case but I think there will be a hung jury.

Maybe the State can somehow still prove that big spot in the trunk was decomposition. I don't know. I don't think the jurors believe everything the Anthony's are saying. I don't believe anything they are saying. I pray the State can turn this around. Its like its the Anthonys against the State. Who is going to win???

They don't need "premeditation". That's what everybody keeps forgetting. Felony Murder + Child Abuse = 1st degree murder and DP in Florida. So even an "unintentional" death of a 2 year old child via the deliberate use of chloroform will rise be elevated to 1st degree murder and face the DP.

 

[gamom]

I forgot to add that I not only feel beyond a resonable doubt that KC cholorformed Caylee, I actually beleive she may have tried it on CA dogs as a test before she used it on Caylee. When CA said her dogs were drowsy in March around the same time the other searches took place, the light bulb went on.

 

[Nova]

this is a great point!!! she is facing the DEATH PENALTY. i completely agree that their moral obligation is to try to save her butt by presenting evidence and information that creates doubt. it does not help the defendant if her legal team does not have a single piece of evidence or information in her favor at all. i know they are not required to put on a defense at all, but considering she is facing death i would say her attorneys are morally obligated to do what they can so that she isn't killed by the state for this. she has the right to a proper defense.

That is the risk, that a jury will score both sides like a ball game and decide (wrongly and illegally) that the defense loses "on points" if a vigorous defense isn't mounted.

But there are cases where the defense decides that any evidence/testimony they can present will only make matters worse. (Some people have argued that was true in this case!) Sometimes a defendant has a history the defense desperately wants to keep the jury from knowing, and it is decided that any testimony may risk opening the door to the defendant's prior bad acts. Sometimes the DT believes the prosecution case is so weak that offering a rebuttal only gives the case credibility; in such cases, the DT concentrates on showing how the prosecution hasn't met its burden.

 

[lonetraveler]

No.
Not for one second.
The Jury sees right through this pathetic defense team .
I think they show remarkable restraint by not laughing out loud at JB every day..

I've served on a couple of high profile capital trials with death sentences as a probability and I can say that there was always a couple of young, gullible jurors who knew absolutely nothing about law and were so confused that they argued that the Defense did not prove the defendant innocent????????? Yeah, you read it correctly, innocent! I have been a bit concerned that this trial will result with a hung jury simply because at least a couple of the jurors openly stated that they did not believe in the death penalty and one even stated that they could not judge another person. I'm sure that the DT has thrown enough spaghetti against the wall to confuse some of these jurors and I have feeling that there is a very real possibility that this jury will not come to a unanimous decision on the verdict. If by some miracle a verdict is made I do not think that the "death penalty" will be recommended by the jury.

We, the people on WS who have followed many cases all the way through the sentencing can see all the holes in the defenses attempts to raise "reasonable doubt", however to the ordinary citizens in the rest of the work, LOL, it is going to be difficult to see the "fairy tales" for what they are.:twocents:

 

[JBounds]

What convinced me right out of the gate back three years ago was the 31 days, the 911 call and just plain going on with her life as if nothing ever happened. How much longer would it not have been reported if Cindy had not called 911?

And the DT has not made me waiver one bit from her being guilty.

 

[Baznme]

I've served on a couple of high profile capital trials with death sentences as a probability and I can say that there was always a couple of young, gullible jurors who knew absolutely nothing about law and were so confused that they argued that the Defense did not prove the defendant innocent????????? Yeah, you read it correctly, innocent! I have been a bit concerned that this trial will result with a hung jury simply because at least a couple of the jurors openly stated that they did not believe in the death penalty and one even stated that they could not judge another person. I'm sure that the DT has thrown enough spaghetti against the wall to confuse some of these jurors and I have feeling that there is a very real possibility that this jury will not come to a unanimous decision on the verdict. If by some miracle a verdict is made I do not think that the "death penalty" will be recommended by the jury.

We, the people on WS who have followed many cases all the way through the sentencing can see all the holes in the defenses attempts to raise "reasonable doubt", however to the ordinary citizens in the rest of the work, LOL, it is going to be difficult to see the "fairy tales" for what they are.:twocents:

I hold your posts in high regard LT but, I sincerely hope that is not the case. I don't feel it was a deliberate cold blooded murder but it was definately neglect that resulted in death of her 2 yr. old. In the eyes of the law, I guess that equates to premeditation and the potential consequence is the DP. Having said that, I think I can honestly say if I were on this jury, I would be reluctant to vote for the DP, but something substantial enough so she would not be back in society until well after her child bearing years were over.

 

[katydid23]

I don't care if she doesn't get the DP. I just want her to receive LWOP or at the very least, Life in prison.

 

[gxm]

I would actually agree that there aren't any good or wholesome reasons to put duct tape on a child's face, and that is a powerfully emotional statement. However, it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is was it applied before or after Caylee died. The emotional argument is strong, the factual one, not so much. MOO

Then you are missing my point which is not an emotional one. It is a purely practical one. If the duct tape was applied before death then it is very likely the cause of death. And if the duct tape was applied after death then it was put there to mislead LE, destroy evidence, and stage it to look like an abduction (which is exactly what ICA was trying to do at the time: make it look like Zanny the nanny had abducted Caylee). When I use the words "good" and "wholesome" it is not to convey emotion, it is to use them in opposition to "evil" and "malicious." Whoever put the duct tape on Caylee did so with evil intent, so for me whether the tape was applied before or after makes no difference as the intent is the same. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, with the facts as we know them, that ICA put the duct tape on Caylee with malicious intent. Whether the tape was applied to kill Caylee or cover up the manner of death, either way points to murder.

In the end, one only needs to look at the manner in which Caylee was disposed of. If, as the DT claims, GA had been involved then he would have dug a grave for the tiny body. A grown man did not dispose of Caylee's remains. A small woman, lacking the physical strength to dig a hole for the body, threw Caylee away like garbage (but only after she realized her car was starting to smell of decomp), and then went out and partied for a month.

 

[sweetmop]

I believe without a reasonable doubt that ica is guilty of premeditated murder of little Caylee.
She did not report her missing ( or drowned and dead ) for 31 days! 31 days!
Plus it wasn't ica but her mother that actually reported her mising. ica never would have , had she had the chance! And I always remember ica begging CA for one more day! One more day for what? What the he!! would she have done with one more day?
ica then went on living the beautiful life. Hanging out with Toni, having sex all day with him, partying, partying and more partying! She was having a great time and had no worries in the world. Just look at all those pictures taken during the 31 days!