Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[GeekyGirl]

Why so much duct tape? That has bothered me like nothing else. This is A LOT of duct tape on a little face. 3 pieces connected with the skull.
from skull
q62 - 9.5x2
q63 - 7.5x2intertwined w q64
q64- 9.5x2
found separate from skull
q104-8.5x2 only one no dead hair

I, like you, have gone over and over and over this in my mind and I can't think of any logical reason they would be there other than to cause suffocation.
keep silent theory - why so much and stuck in hair (how do you remove that later?)
kidnapp theory - why so much?
manipulated by the elements - how'd they end up stuck in her hair?
stuck to bag and hair - wouldn't there be evidence of bag on tape or vice versa?
pet wrap theory-seems there'd be some connection with bag?
keep in body fluids - i personally just don't buy this

I want to believe it an accident. It's easier to wrap my mind around that a mother intentionally killing her child. Besides all of the behavior and other stuff too numerous too mention at this time that doesn't add up, this is one piece of evidence that keeps haunting me like nothing else and has had me entertaining 1st degree premed or felony murder. If I was on the jury I could comp with 2nd degree, not sure if I could agree to manslaughter. But I am still stuck on this duct tape.

I understand your feelings on this. For me, I go back and forth with the duct tape. I've had nightmares about it, to the point that I made my boyfriend lock ours in a drawer (I know that makes no sense whatsoever, but it made me feel better). It honestly doesn't make sense to me either way, before or after she died. Some days I'm sure it was before, others I'm sure it was after. If I were a juror, that would mean I have a conviction that "vacillates" and according to the Florida jury instructions, that's reasonable doubt, so I don't think I could vote for more than agg manslaughter, based on the law, and that seriously frustrates me.

 

[katydid23]

I Apologize. I was not really talking about you. I will go edit my post. That did not come out the way I meant.

I take offense to you saying I haven't thought this through. I have thought about this case day and night since she was reported missing. Your comments indicate that I said she and her father covered this up. I never said that. I never said it was an accident. I said that there was NO PROOF that she was murdered. Show me the proof. Not the 31 days, not the lying, not the covering it up, SHOW ME that Caylee was murdered. The duct tape? Not proven BARD that it was even on her when she died. Chloroform? No concrete evidence that it was even used on Caylee. Could the duct tape or chloroform been a factor to her death? Maybe. If you believe BARD that this is what Casey used to kill her. I don't. I don't see why she would kill her with duct tape when it would be easier to just smother her with a pillow. Chloroform? Why not just give her benadryl to knock her out? Instead she makes a concoction that takes time and effort to make and use? I don't buy it. It just doesn't fit together. Maybe, and I really hope that it happens, maybe the SA will be able to tie it all together in their final argument.

WHY didn't she call for an EMT to try and save her child?
Because she didn't want to be held responsible.

Wouldnt they have screamed and made a ruckus if they found Caylee in the pool? Did they instantly decide to be quiet and cover it up?
Maybe she did, no one was home so who can say if she screamed or not? Also, who said she died in a pool? She could have been left in a hot car.

There are at least 2 houses with a clear view into the Ant's backyard.
Again, I never said she died in the pool.

As for the 'proof'--that is what the state has been laying out brick by brick. Casey's demeanor and behavior in the aftermath do not say 'Accident.' They say Aggravated Child Abuse.


Why would some one cover up an accidental death by making it look like a MURDER? Because she didn't want to be held responsible and lying and covering up seems to be what Casey does best.

====================================


WHY didn't she call for an EMT to try and save her child?
Because she didn't want to be held responsible.

SO SHE WOULD RATHER ESCAPE ANY POTENTIAL BLAME THAN TRY AND REVIVE THE BABY?
I think that is pretty damning evidence in itself that she deserves some punishment.


Wouldnt they have screamed and made a ruckus if they found Caylee in the pool? Did they instantly decide to be quiet and cover it up?
Maybe she did, no one was home so who can say if she screamed or not? Also, who said she died in a pool? She could have been left in a hot car.

BUT THE HOUSES ARE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER. If she screamed the way one would if they found their child dead, then I believe she would have been heard.
I am talking about a pool, because that is what CASEY SAID HAPPENED. Are you expecting the jury to decide that Casey and the state are both wrong? I would not be expecting the jury to deliberate on an accident that has not even been testified to in trial.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the jury has to choose one of the two theories offered.
And anyway, if it was a hot car, why would she say it was a drowning? Why not tell the truth if it was an accident anyway?

There are at least 2 houses with a clear view into the Ant's backyard.
Again, I never said she died in the pool.

I am just saying that if the jury is going to decide it was an 'accident' then they pretty much have to deliberate the story the defendant has given. imoo


Why would some one cover up an accidental death by making it look like a MURDER? Because she didn't want to be held responsible and lying and covering up seems to be what Casey does best.

But covering up a small thing, with a bigger thing, that brings the Death Penalty makes no sense at all.

 

[Nova24]

I've always thought duct tape was put on after she drugged her in the event she woke up she wouldn't be able to scream. That gives me nightmares. The duct tape post mortem never made sense to me. It will be interesting to see what resonated with the jury and what didn't.

 

[GeekyGirl]

So your saying that we have know what exactly happened that day or only know part of what happened that day?

Well, for me, yes. It goes back to the point Who_What_When has been trying to make all night, how I can say that the circumstances that caused a person's death meet the elements for first degree murder, if I'm not reasonably sure what those circumstances were? Manslaughter only requires you to prove that defendant was responsible for the death, which I think we can all agree Casey was. Murder requires proof of an act, malice and intent. I see lots of evidence that those things could have been present, but nothing that convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that they were. Again, I think she probably did murder Caylee, but I'm discussing what's been proven in a court of law... Two very different things.

ETA: I'm not saying I would need to know exactly what happened, just more evidence that it meets the elements of first degree murder, or that any other conclusion besides first degree would be unreasonable.

 

[RANCH]

I understand your feelings on this. For me, I go back and forth with the duct tape. I've had nightmares about it, to the point that I made my boyfriend lock ours in a drawer (I know that makes no sense whatsoever, but it made me feel better). It honestly doesn't make sense to me either way, before or after she died. Some days I'm sure it was before, others I'm sure it was after. If I were a juror, that would mean I have a conviction that "vacillates" and according to the Florida jury instructions, that's reasonable doubt, so I don't think I could vote for more than agg manslaughter, based on the law, and that seriously frustrates me.

You shouldn't focus on one piece of evidence. Look at the overall picture. CORPUS DELICTI.

 

[GeekyGirl]

You shouldn't focus on one piece of evidence. Look at the overall picture. CORPUS DELICTI.

I don't think the chloroform evidence is strong enough to support the conclusion that it must have been used, or even that the searches were proof of her intent to murder Caylee, and the only other evidence the prosecution has presented to support the first degree murder charge is the duct tape, so what else is there to convince me it could only be murder and not manslaughter?

 

[RANCH]

I don't think the chloroform evidence is strong enough to support the conclusion that it must have been used, or even that the searches were proof of her intent to murder Caylee, and the only other evidence the prosecution has presented to support the first degree murder charge is the duct tape, so what else is there to convince me it could only be murder and not manslaughter?

You tell me. Your eliminating three things. Chloroform, searches,and I guess the duct tape.
The only thing left would be ICA's behavior after Caylee's death.

 

[GeekyGirl]

You tell me. Your eliminating three things. Chloroform, searches,and I guess the duct tape.
The only thing left would be ICA's behavior after Caylee's death.

And IMO her behavior after the fact doesn't tell us anything about the death except that Casey was somehow responsible for it, (It actually points away from any significant preplanning to me for me*) so I'm still left with the fact that Caylee was in Casey's care, ended up dead, and Casey knew she was responsible for said death and covered it up. So, if I'm a juror, the best I can do is manslaughter. Don't know what else to tell you.

*Preplanning is not the same as premeditation, which can be formed at any point before the crime, even in the seconds before it happens.

 

[RANCH]

And IMO her behavior after the fact doesn't tell us anything about the death except that Casey was somehow responsible for it, (It actually points away from any significant preplanning to me for me*) so I'm still left with the fact that Caylee was in Casey's care, ended up dead, and Casey knew she was responsible for said death and covered it up. So, if I'm a juror, the best I can do is manslaughter. Don't know what else to tell you.

*Preplanning is not the same as premeditation, which can be formed at any point before the crime, even in the seconds before it happens.

Wow. Your post really has me confused now. Especially the pre- planning disclaimer.

 

[katydid23]

Respectfully, what factual evidence surrounding the actual death has been proven BARD? I realize this is subjective, but what facts about the actual death were testified to by experts as being the only logical, reasonable conclusion for the evidence, rather than evidence that supports a theory of the crime (i.e. "If you accept A then B is probably true"), or appeals to emotion? I can only think of one, and that was Dr. G saying that homicide is scientifically supported as the manner of death. Which I agree with, but homicide isn't murder, could also be manslaughter.

BBM
That is why it is important to look at the surrounding situation. It might be accidental manslaughter, or it is purposeful murder.

In my experience, mothers who have accidentally caused a death or lost children accidentally, are DEVASTATED. I had a neighbor whose toddler drown in the family pool because she had been gardening while the baby was asleep and she came in to check on her, saw her still napping, then took a minute to quickly rinse off the dirt in the shower, and her girl woke up and went outside in those few minutes and died. The pool fence was OPEN because of the gardening she was doing in that area. SHE WAS INCONSOLABLE.

Mothers who find their children unconscious/injured/dead USUALLY ALWAYS seek help for the child. That in itself is EVIDENCE of it being purposeful as opposed to accidental, imo.
And they USUALLY ALWAYS feel regret, grief afterwards. Again, that is EVIDENCE that she may have purposely wanted the child gone. because if it was a tragic accident then why was she so happy afterwards?
That is evidence.

If you come across 2 children in the yard and one is on the ground crying with a swollen eye, and the other is standing over them, how do you know if it was an accident or on purpose?
The standing child is feeling remorse and apologizing OR is laughing and feeling proud of hitting the other kid. THAT IS EVIDENCE. If one kid is laughing and happy about the one on the ground, do you think it MIGHT be an accident? I don't think so.

So I do not understand why people keep saying 'forget the 31 days," and forget the lying and the cover up. WHY IGNORE THAT? It is evidence of Casey's state of mind.

If it were an accident then she would not sit in jail and wait to be put on trial for Capital Murder. If she was guilty of negligent manslaughter she could have made a deal. But she wants to go all out and walk away scot free. She wants to bring down her dad and her brother and her mom.

Let's say it was negligent manslaughter. Should she be held responsible for accusing her father of duct taping the child and doing the cover up and of raping her all of her life?

The way she has behaved, accident or not, she deserves to be locked up for LIFE, imo. She has tried to blame the kidnapping on innocent people to save herself, like ex boyfriends and strangers and family members. So, imo, she deserves ZERO benefit of the doubt. Her child died in her care, she threw her in the trunk, then wrapped her in garbage bags and threw her in a swamp.

HOW OR WHY does not really matter to me given her behavior- accusing others publicly, torturing her family, collecting donations for 'searching', asking others to search, telling people she was still alive and coming home soon. She should be held accountable for all of that horrid behavior, accident or not. AND THAT HORRID BEHAVIOR HELPS CONVINCE ME THAT SHE IS GUILTY.

 

[dilbert]

The computer searches and the chloroform in the car are pretty damning, IMO - especially when you throw in the fact that Cindy lied about being the one to do them. I think Cindy tightened the noose on Casey and I wonder how she'll live with herself if Casey gets the death penalty because of it.

 

[Lady Rider]

And IMO her behavior after the fact doesn't tell us anything about the death except that Casey was somehow responsible for it, (It actually points away from any significant preplanning to me for me*) so I'm still left with the fact that Caylee was in Casey's care, ended up dead, and Casey knew she was responsible for said death and covered it up. So, if I'm a juror, the best I can do is manslaughter. Don't know what else to tell you.

*Preplanning is not the same as premeditation, which can be formed at any point before the crime, even in the seconds before it happens.

<modsnip>
The computer searches for chloroform, neckbreaking, etc could be considered as: consideration or planning of an act beforehand. Based on the amount of Chloroform found in the trunk of the car and the child being found dead and as Dr. G said "no child should have duct tape on their face" are difficult to ignore.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I think it is reasonable to assume that the jury has to choose one of the two theories offered.

(respectfully snipped before and after by me)

They really aren't supposed to look at it that way though. They're supposed to look at the state's case first and determine whether or not the evidence presented fully supports any or all of the charges BARD, and then, determine if the defense presents any evidence that would cast reasonable doubt on the state's case.

The problem I see, and I think Who_What_When sees is that some jurors may not be fully convinced that the state presented enough evidence to support a first degree murder charge (by premeditation or felony murder rule) BARD. It's nothing they did wrong, they put on a great case, but they can only work with what they have. What the defense presented was crazy, but it doesn't change the fact that the state may not have met the burden of proof in the first place for some jurors. I think she probably did murder Caylee, but the jurors have a responsibility to return a verdict based on what the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As much as I detest Casey Anthony, I can't advocate for a verdict that isn't based on the law. No disrespect meant, I understand and admire your passion, and I'm comforted by the fact that there are so many wonderful, caring people in this world that are willing to stand up and fight for a little girl who should have been loved and cherished.

 

[aeneas1]

I've always thought duct tape was put on after she drugged her in the event she woke up she wouldn't be able to scream. That gives me nightmares. The duct tape post mortem never made sense to me. It will be interesting to see what resonated with the jury and what didn't.

i believe casey effectively and successfully chloroformed and trunked caylee in the past, but when she decided to murder caylee she was unsure of what dosage would for certain do the job. as such she placed duct tape over caylee's face for good measure, enough to ensure that it couldn't be removed in the event the dosage was not enough and caylee awoke. i think i'll puke now.

 

[katydid23]

And IMO her behavior after the fact doesn't tell us anything about the death except that Casey was somehow responsible for it, (It actually points away from any significant preplanning to me for me*) so I'm still left with the fact that Caylee was in Casey's care, ended up dead, and Casey knew she was responsible for said death and covered it up. So, if I'm a juror, the best I can do is manslaughter. Don't know what else to tell you.

*Preplanning is not the same as premeditation, which can be formed at any point before the crime, even in the seconds before it happens.

Casey lived her life 10 minutes at a time. When she stole that money from Amy she signed her own name on the back of the stolen checks and took them to the Bof A, cashed them right on camera. NO PREPLANNING. She was going to cross that bridge when she came to it.

[Look up Ted Bundy. Casey is very similar. A narcissistic sociopath, imo.]

So she is in Casey's care and she 'ends up' dead, casey covers it up. You are leaving out much of the important parts to the story.

She could have felt responsible and covered it up by laying low. Telling her family the child is with it's father , and then began grieving. Getting a real job, changing her life for the better, deciding to honor Caylee by becoming a better person. All the while feeling some remorse for her lost child.

But NO, that is NOT how Casey covered it up. She went out and celebrated her FREEDOM. She was happy and care free and hadn't a care in the world.

Do you see the difference between those two versions of 'covering up' an accident? One shows a mother who felt guilt and remorse. The other showed a mother who was the 'happiest' she had ever been. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And you cannot just write that behavior off as irrelevant to the case. imoo

We do not know what happened to Caylee because Casey was careful to keep it all a secret. That is the way she lived her life. But we do know enough about casey and the way she behaved and reacted to know that she was HAPPY after the child went missing. You cannot pretend that is meaningless, imo.

Also when she was 'caught'--did she admit it and come clean? NO she decided to point the finger at dozens of other innocent people, bring down as many as she can. I hope the jury takes that into account to.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Wow. Your post really has me confused now. Especially the pre- planning disclaimer.

Sorry, getting tired. Was just trying to head off the inevitable "premeditation can happen in seconds" comment. What I was trying to say is that the way the body was handled afterwards doesn't point to someone who had been planning and plotting for months or even days to kill her child (one of the problems I have with chloroform with the intent to kill her). Everything that differentiates manslaughter from first degree murder occurs BEFORE or during the crime. Malice, premeditation, and the willful act. Even if you argue felony murder, you have to prove that a willful act of child abuse was committed. So, yes, those 31 days were bad, and showed a callous disregard for the life of a precious innocent child, but what about them proves BARD that all of the elements of a murder charge are satisfied? To me, it's clear that Caylee was in Casey's care, she died and Casey covered up the death in order to avoid accountability for said death because she knew she'd be held responsible. She waited in prison for three years because a trial was the only way to avoid a long sentence. Even if she did murder her, she could have pled out before now and probably gotten away with 30 years. She wants to walk, no matter what the cost to anyone else. None of that gives me any real insight to what happened that day, just tells me she's a horrible human being. Unfortunately, there's not a charge for that.

 

[katydid23]

They really aren't supposed to look at it that way though. They're supposed to look at the state's case first and determine whether or not the evidence presented fully supports any or all of the charges BARD, and then, determine if the defense presents any evidence that would cast reasonable doubt on the state's case.

The problem I see, and I think Who_What_When sees is that some jurors may not be fully convinced that the state presented enough evidence to support a first degree murder charge (by premeditation or felony murder rule) BARD. It's nothing they did wrong, they put on a great case, but they can only work with what they have. What the defense presented was crazy, but it doesn't change the fact that the state may not have met the burden of proof in the first place for some jurors. I think she probably did murder Caylee, but the jurors have a responsibility to return a verdict based on what the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As much as I detest Casey Anthony, I can't advocate for a verdict that isn't based on the law. No disrespect meant, I understand and admire your passion, and I'm comforted by the fact that there are so many wonderful, caring people in this world that are willing to stand up and fight for a little girl who should have been loved and cherished.

I think we need to listen to the closing arguments before we decide if either side has not met the burden of proof. Cases are often won and lost on the closing because that is where the loose ends are tied up.

And, imo. there is very little reasonable doubt that Caylee was killed by her mom. NOTHING else makes any sense, imo.

 

[RANCH]

The problem I see, and I think Who_What_When sees is that some jurors may not be fully convinced that the state presented enough evidence to support a first degree murder charge (by premeditation or felony murder rule) BARD.

I would like to know what your Who_What_When really means.Does it mean eye witness testimony?I hope not. Because that's the worst testimony your going to get.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Casey lived her life 10 minutes at a time. When she stole that money from Amy she signed her own name on the back of the stolen checks and took them to the Bof A, cashed them right on camera. NO PREPLANNING. She was going to cross that bridge when she came to it.

[Look up Ted Bundy. Casey is very similar. A narcissistic sociopath, imo.]

So she is in Casey's care and she 'ends up' dead, casey covers it up. You are leaving out much of the important parts to the story.

She could have felt responsible and covered it up by laying low. Telling her family the child is with it's father , and then began grieving. Getting a real job, changing her life for the better, deciding to honor Caylee by becoming a better person. All the while feeling some remorse for her lost child.

But NO, that is NOT how Casey covered it up. She went out and celebrated her FREEDOM. She was happy and care free and hadn't a care in the world.

Do you see the difference between those two versions of 'covering up' an accident? One shows a mother who felt guilt and remorse. The other showed a mother who was the 'happiest' she had ever been. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And you cannot just write that behavior off as irrelevant to the case. imoo

We do not know what happened to Caylee because Casey was careful to keep it all a secret. That is the way she lived her life. But we do know enough about casey and the way she behaved and reacted to know that she was HAPPY after the child went missing. You cannot pretend that is meaningless, imo.

Also when she was 'caught'--did she admit it and come clean? NO she decided to point the finger at dozens of other innocent people, bring down as many as she can. I hope the jury takes that into account to.

If she's a narcissistic sociopath she wouldn't feel remorse if Caylee died because she was negligent. She'd look at the situation, determine how it would affect her life, and do exactly what she did for 31 days. I get what you're saying, really I do, and I understand your outrage, but those are mostly appeals to emotion, not evidence that can substantiate a murder charge. Again, I think she probably did it, I think she's a terrible, evil person, and I think Caylee's death was a tragedy. I have nightmares about this case, and I've cried so many times in the past few weeks that my nose is raw. (Unlike Casey, my tissues get wet and I'm an ugly, snotty crier). I'm only talking about the law here, and while I respect your opinion, mine is different. I hope you can understand.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I would like to know what your Who_What_When really means.Does it mean eye witness testimony?I hope not. Because that's the worst testimony your going to get.

I meant the person posting under that screen name... ITA with you on eyewitness testimony.