Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[krt]

Only of their competency!

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

I understand your reasoning, and I'm no way trying to discount your opinion, but this is my reasoning... If the duct tape was applied before death, I absolutely agree that even if you couldn't prove premeditation (state of mind is hard to prove) it most certainly fits the standard for aggravated child abuse, thereby qualifying it as felony murder. I think most of us agree on that. Where I diverge from your view is if the duct tape was applied after death. Is it a horrible thought that Casey would apply duct tape after Caylee died? Absolutely. Is it proof that she tampered with evidence? Absolutely. Does it show she tried to cover up the death? Yes.Would a reasonable person do something like that if the death was not their fault? I can't see why they would. Is that proof that the death was the result of murder, rather than an neglectful act on Casey's part?Here's the sticky part... IMO no, it's not. I've never said I thought George was involved, or that Casey is anything other than a terrible person. I'm truly convinced she was responsible for the death of her child, I'm just not sure whether it was because she didn't care enough to keep her safe or she willfully chose to commit an act that resulted in Caylee's death, and that's difference between manslaughter and murder. Again, I respect your opinion, and I'm sorry if mine causes you frustration. As always, MOO

 

[PennyC]

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.

But why if it was an accident would your opening statements involve your Dad and blame your Dad because he molested you? Why would you sit in jail for three years if it was an accident? Once the gig was up wouldn't you come right out and tell them it was an accident? I say no way was it an accidental drowning maybe overdosing her with cloroform.

I say common sense will override what evidence is and is not there.

 

[whiteangora]

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.

I would like to see LWOP too, but at this point I doubt it will happen.
I never thought the death penalty would come to play and now I am wondering if she will just get convicted on lesser charges. I'm just not feeling real positive about the outcome right now.
Hopefully JA and LDB will give a super convincing closing argument.

 

[Solomisskitty]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt?
uh.....no
let me rephrase that.
uh.....no

 

[GeekyGirl]

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.

The only reason I can think of is that Casey truly believes that, somehow, some way, she's going to walk away with from this with out ever having to admit what she did. I think a lifetime of getting away with things has made her think she is smarter than she really is, and so far no one in her circle seems to arguing with her. Her defense team is putting on this ridiculous show and her family appears to be willing to lie for her. It's baffling to me, but she continues to act like if she just maintains her innocence long enough, everyone else will just cave in and give her what she wants. Then again, it seems that that strategy has worked for her for most of her life, so maybe it's not that illogical that she thinks that way. MOO

 

[CementPond]

IMO I don't think they have. At least, I see nothing left untold/unexplained that makes me wonder or go hmmmmmm. JMO

 

[Who_What_When]

But why if it was an accident would your opening statements involve your Dad and blame your Dad because he molested you? Why would you sit in jail for three years if it was an accident? Once the gig was up wouldn't you come right out and tell them it was an accident? I say no way was it an accidental drowning maybe overdosing her with cloroform.

I say common sense will override what evidence is and is not there.

Because Casey will never admit to any wrong doing and would rather throw everyone else under the bus than to take any blame for any of her actions. I agree that a normal person wouldn't sit in jail for 3 years if it was an accident but a normal person also would have called 911 if it was an accident, but we all know that Casey is not normal. I think what everyone is forgetting is, believing she is guilty and proving that she is are two different things. The jury has rules that they have to follow when coming to a verdict and they will need concrete evidence that she is guilty, they can’t just go on their emotions.

 

[The Shoat]

But they are creating a confusing circus.

It's going to get worse in the coming days IMO. I think they will drag GA through the mud. GA has already told one lie to protect KC - that he saw Caylee on 6/16 -- well, I think he's about to get double-crossed.

That's the problem with the jury system -- it's easy to create a circus if you have money - and a circus can be confused with reasonable doubt.

And, there's money here, celebrity trash money and lots of it. I am sure everyone on the DT has a book deal in the works, and paid interviews lined up after the trial is over, regardless of outcome; so don't believe for a minute they are working pro bono.

Which brings us to the defense team's motive - celebrity and cashing in on it. They are neither competent nor committed defenders. They are second-raters, attracted by the lurid, tabloid sensationalism that the Anthony family creates.

Money is also part of the family's motive. There seemed to be $$ issues before Caylee's death - with every family member unemployed at different times and CA probably resentful she was carrying the load. But, now ... well, no one has to work, everyone is doing just fine on celebrity trash money.

And, if KC gets aquitted, can you imagine what her first interview will go for?

 

[ladylurker]

I understand your reasoning, and I'm no way trying to discount your opinion, but this is my reasoning... If the duct tape was applied before death, I absolutely agree that even if you couldn't prove premeditation (state of mind is hard to prove) it most certainly fits the standard for aggravated child abuse, thereby qualifying it as felony murder. I think most of us agree on that. Where I diverge from your view is if the duct tape was applied after death. Is it a horrible thought that Casey would apply duct tape after Caylee died? Absolutely. Is it proof that she tampered with evidence? Absolutely. Does it show she tried to cover up the death? Yes.Would a reasonable person do something like that if the death was not their fault? I can't see why they would. Is that proof that the death was the result of murder, rather than an neglectful act on Casey's part?Here's the sticky part... IMO no, it's not. I've never said I thought George was involved, or that Casey is anything other than a terrible person. I'm truly convinced she was responsible for the death of her child, I'm just not sure whether it was because she didn't care enough to keep her safe or she willfully chose to commit an act that resulted in Caylee's death, and that's difference between manslaughter and murder. Again, I respect your opinion, and I'm sorry if mine causes you frustration. As always, MOO

i enjoy your style of writing and the way you present your opinion.

if the duct tape was indeed placed after the death, it may not point to murder, but it suggests very fishy circumstances surrounding the death (well, even without the duct tape considered at all, 2 year olds don't just randomly die so there are fishy circumstances anyway), such as neglect or abuse unintentionally resulting in death. putting duct tape over her face in order to make it look like it was NOT an accident still screams of guilt of SOMETHING, whether it was murder or a fishy accident.

a question: others have said that child abuse unintentionally resulting in death is still considered felony murder and can still get the DP, correct? is this the same for child neglect resulting in death? or does that become manslaughter? a lot of the time organizations dealing with child abuse also concern child neglect, saying that neglect is a form of abuse. but what about legally in terms of this case? if it is proven that caylee died by accident due to neglect instead of abuse (or outright premeditated murder), would it still be considered a DP case?

 

[Justin Tyme]

Say what? Reasonable doubt that the Anthony are all liars? NOPE! There's no doubt about it. In fact he's reinforced that they all lie. Geez, they all must be so proud!

 

[Sleuth5]

It will boil down to the jury's ability to internalize the jury charge and the specific instructions as to what constitutes a reasonable doubt. If the jury deliberates and discusses that aspect, I believe they will come to a decision based on the law and not on their own personal flights of "possibility". If they don't, all bets are off. Most juries do not truly deliberate "reasonable" in the terms presented to them. They tend to presume its meaning from their own experience and decide what constitutes a reasonable doubt, then disregard information that contradicts that opinion.

That's simply the long and short of it. Read interviews from jurors after cases, and you inevitably find the wildest versions of "reasonable" doubts being offered in their decision making processes. Unfortunately, the law cannot intervene in that process beyond issuing the appropriate charges and instructions and providing remedial measures in some cases which they judge may apply in accepting the verdict or assessing sentence.

So, it comes down to who's in the seats (hence the critical role of jury selection) as to even the possibility of a guilty verdict in a case involving circumstantial evidence, for example. If a juror is determined to consider any doubt as reasonable -- and is able to internalize it as such -- they will often do so regardless of instruction.

:cow:

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

All of these defense witnesses are definitely making me sick that she will not be convicted. I mean, we here all know what she did, however she did it I can't say. But she killed her. Her defense team is only coming up with this drowning story because it's a last ditch effort. We know this. If Caylee really drowned, and Casey wanted to 'throw her father under the bus' as she's now done, this would have been done WAYYYYY before she even went in the slammer for good. She didn't want to sit in jail. She would have blamed her father, turned him in and told her mother and brother and she would have had ALL the attention on her rather than Caylee right at the beginning, to be done and over with this mess so she could get on with the boys...I mean, her life. It makes NO sense that she comes up with this now unless it's desperation. The type of person she is, she would have relished in telling this story BEFORE she's been in jail for 3 years.

She lies as she goes. She didn't have this well-planned but I think she thought about it for a while. But I'm concerned. I was the only person in my criminal psychology class that voted (while we watched live) that OJ was gonna get off and I've got the same disgusting feeling about this one.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Then who do you think killed Caylee??? She was in Casey's care only for 31 days......

People say the last person she was seen with was Casey but the person who last saw her with Casey was George and I just don't believe George about anything. So to me, the last people to see Caylee alive and well (outside of that lying family) were the people at the nursing home...and she was with Cindy. After that I don't know what happened to her.. I just know I don't believe a word out of the Anthony's mouths.

 

[gxm]

I understand your reasoning, and I'm no way trying to discount your opinion, but this is my reasoning... If the duct tape was applied before death, I absolutely agree that even if you couldn't prove premeditation (state of mind is hard to prove) it most certainly fits the standard for aggravated child abuse, thereby qualifying it as felony murder. I think most of us agree on that. Where I diverge from your view is if the duct tape was applied after death. Is it a horrible thought that Casey would apply duct tape after Caylee died? Absolutely. Is it proof that she tampered with evidence? Absolutely. Does it show she tried to cover up the death? Yes.Would a reasonable person do something like that if the death was not their fault? I can't see why they would. Is that proof that the death was the result of murder, rather than an neglectful act on Casey's part?Here's the sticky part... IMO no, it's not. I've never said I thought George was involved, or that Casey is anything other than a terrible person. I'm truly convinced she was responsible for the death of her child, I'm just not sure whether it was because she didn't care enough to keep her safe or she willfully chose to commit an act that resulted in Caylee's death, and that's difference between manslaughter and murder. Again, I respect your opinion, and I'm sorry if mine causes you frustration. As always, MOO

The way I see it one does not attempt to cover up manner of death unless the manner proves malice. It is not uncommon for a killer to try to stage a death so that it looks like an accident. But to stage an accident to make it look like a murder? Nope. I'm just not buying the bridge Baez is trying to sell the jury.

And don't worry, you're not frustrating me. I enjoy discussing differing opinions.

 

[GeekyGirl]

i enjoy your style of writing and the way you present your opinion.

if the duct tape was indeed placed after the death, it may not point to murder, but it suggests very fishy circumstances surrounding the death (well, even without the duct tape considered at all, 2 year olds don't just randomly die so there are fishy circumstances anyway), such as neglect or abuse unintentionally resulting in death. putting duct tape over her face in order to make it look like it was NOT an accident still screams of guilt of SOMETHING, whether it was murder or a fishy accident.

a question: others have said that child abuse unintentionally resulting in death is still considered felony murder and can still get the DP, correct? is this the same for child neglect resulting in death? or does that become manslaughter? a lot of the time organizations dealing with child abuse also concern child neglect, saying that neglect is a form of abuse. but what about legally in terms of this case? if it is proven that caylee died by accident due to neglect instead of abuse (or outright premeditated murder), would it still be considered a DP case?

Thank you ITA duct tape after death makes it look fishy, I'm just not sure the extent of that fishiness.

I'm far from a legal expert, and this has been addressed on a lot of the "Ask a Legal Expert" but this is my understanding of it... In order to find for first degree murder on the felony murder rule, they would have to prove that Caylee died as the result of aggravated child abuse (which she is also charged with).

Aggravated child abuse is defined as a person who willfully and knowingly commits an act of abuse that causes permeant harm to a child. (There's more, but this is the key part in this case, see link below for full statute). So if Casey put duct tape on Caylee while she was alive, that would an act of abuse that resulted in permanent harm (death). Even if Casey didn't intend to kill her, she committed aggravated child abuse which resulted in death, so felony murder applies.

In contrast, child neglect is a failure to act, meaning Casey was responsible for keeping Caylee safe and didn't do so. for example, failing to take even the most basic precautions to prevent her from drowning (just an example). That would be child neglect, and the appropriate charge would be aggravated manslaughter of a child.

In the end it comes to this... If Casey did something she shouldn't have and Caylee died, it's murder, if Caylee died because Casey didn't do something she should have, it's manslaughter.

Again, I'm not an expert, so links to applicable statutes below.




http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/Ch0827/Section_0827.03.HTM
(2)http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS09/Ch0782/Section_0782.07.HTM

 

[ladylurker]

GG, i didn't see what your definition of aggravated child abuse is (aside from "2" which i am guessing was a typo)! i am going to look at the other thread. ...or maybe i should go to sleep since i have a miserable case of strep and an unavoidably busy weekend ahead of me.... but i will look at that thread tomorrow!

 

[GeekyGirl]

GG, i didn't see what your definition of aggravated child abuse is (aside from "2" which i am guessing was a typo)! i am going to look at the other thread. ...or maybe i should go to sleep since i have a miserable case of strep and an unavoidably busy weekend ahead of me.... but i will look at that thread tomorrow!

Sorry, I typed it all out and only half of it posted

 

[mydailyopinions]

But why if it was an accident would your opening statements involve your Dad and blame your Dad because he molested you? Why would you sit in jail for three years if it was an accident? Once the gig was up wouldn't you come right out and tell them it was an accident? I say no way was it an accidental drowning maybe overdosing her with cloroform.

I say common sense will override what evidence is and is not there.

I completely agree with you. If this whole situation was just an accident, we would not be here right now discussing it and Caylee would more than likely be tucked in tightly in her bed having the sweetest dreams imaginable.
There was a very good reason why Casey did not admit to an accident and that was because it was not accidental and she KNEW that if LE found Caylee, they would find the truth of what really happened.
Luck was on her side when it took 6 months to find her.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The way I see it one does not attempt to cover up manner of death unless the manner proves malice. It is not uncommon for a killer to try to stage a death so that it looks like an accident. But to stage an accident to make it look like a murder? Nope. I'm just not buying the bridge Baez is trying to sell the jury.

And don't worry, you're not frustrating me. I enjoy discussing differing opinions.

I would agree that most people would not attempt to cover up an accident. I don't agree that Casey is most people. I'm not using the word accident in the sense of absolving Casey from responsibility.(Actually, did I even use the word accident?)

What I'm trying to say is that, if the duct tape was applied after Caylee died, then we really don't how she died and it could have been the result of Casey being neglectful, rather than an active intent to abuse her or kill her. A negligent homicide is still a homicide and Casey still would have had reason to cover up the death, since it appears she doesn't like to accept responsibility for anything she does. I'm not buying the defense's story either, just saying that without being sure of the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death, I couldn't say with moral certainty that it was murder versus manslaughter. IMO, Casey's actions after the fact would have been the same in either scenario. MOO