KC defense team.What now?

[Kat]

I don't remember seeing where Tony said this either, can someone please give me a link? I must have missed a part of his interview.
I want to go back and reread that portion that I missed because now as we move towards the trial, my inferences and theory on what happened and who did what or said what...isn't important, but the facts that are in black and white are important.
TIA.

 

[Wudge]

The law states "Reasonable doubt" not beyond the shadow of a doubt. As far as the facts of this case goes, the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming and a "Sliver of doubt" does not cut it....I can't think of one scenario that a person could come up with to explain their reasonable doubt.

As regards a trial, the most important thing the law states is that prosecutors must present evidence that proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you were on the jury, in the deliberation room and held that such evidence was presented during Casey's trial, I would ask you for the premises upon which you based your conclusion and the true and relevant evidence that support your premises.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Defense Team: What now?

Prolong the inevitable, that's what!

 

[Kat]

Can the interviews that KC gave to LE prior to be mirandized be submitted as evidence? Is so, how would Baez argue to have them excluded?
I'm not sure how he could because he hammered home the fact that KC willingly was interviewed, by asking Y. Melich over and over in the Bond hearing video that she never asked for legal counsel.

 

[lawlady84]

As regards a trial, the most important thing the law states is that prosecutors must present evidence that proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you were on the jury, in the deliberation room and held that such evidence was presented during Casey's trial, I would ask you for the premises upon which you based your conclusion and the true and relevant evidence that support your premises.

And "reasonable" is a legal standard - in light of the facts we know now, the possiblity that a person (zanny) that NO ONE can identify (except the defendant - a person who has lied repeatedly) took and killed Caylee with no motive.. is not "reasonable" doubt. Reasonable as a legal standard means what an average person looking objectively at the evidence would deduce. A juror can't just say, "well I believe in aliens and perhaps aliens took her" - you need a reason, not just a "feeling."

 

[lawlady84]

If you were on the jury, in the deliberation room and held that such evidence was presented during Casey's trial, I would ask you for the premises upon which you based your conclusion and the true and relevant evidence that support your premises.

And great point- if one person is holding out for what other people regard as an unreasonable reason (ie. "God would never let a mother do that) - the jurors can just force a mistrial. If there is a hung jury - one where no verdict can be reached - you have a mistrial, and as long as it wasn't due to prosecutorial misconduct, double jeopardy does NOT attach and you can re-try the case. Here, the evidence really seems so overwhelming that I'd be the state would re-try the case

 

[Wudge]

And "reasonable" is a legal standard - in light of the facts we know now, the possiblity that a person (zanny) that NO ONE can identify (except the defendant - a person who has lied repeatedly) took and killed Caylee with no motive.. is not "reasonable" doubt. Reasonable as a legal standard means what an average person looking objectively at the evidence would deduce. A juror can't just say, "well I believe in aliens and perhaps aliens took her" - you need a reason, not just a "feeling."

Not liking the defense's storyline does not, in any way, provide evidence to the State that can be used to meet their burden to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Here, the evidence really seems so overwhelming that I'd be the state would re-try the case

If you see the evidence as overwhelming in support of the State's charge that Casey committed premeditated murder, lay out your premises that force you to conclude there is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", and provide the evidence that supports the truth of your premises.

 

[debs]

Can the interviews that KC gave to LE prior to be mirandized be submitted as evidence? Is so, how would Baez argue to have them excluded?
I'm not sure how he could because he hammered home the fact that KC willingly was interviewed, by asking Y. Melich over and over in the Bond hearing video that she never asked for legal counsel.

Since LE spent so much time using the information given by Casey during these interviews as their preliminary search for Caylee, I cannot see how they could be excluded.

 

[Wudge]

Since LE spent so much time using the information given by Casey during thes interviews as their preliminary search for Caylee, I cannot see how they could be excluded.

It would depend on what prosecutors allege Casey's early statements evidence. It's fair to expect prosecutors to focus on those statements as a basis for alleging inconsistencies/half-truths/lies.

 

[debs]

It would depend on what prosecutors allege Casey's early statements evidence. It's fair to expect prosecutors to focus on those statements as a basis for alleging inconsistencies/half-truths/lies.

I agree. I also think the defense will throw at the detectives that they weren't doing their work. I would imagine at that moment, it would open up testimony about following the leads of the liarpants.

 

[MissDiva]

Most people here refer to Casey as a Sociopath. Can it be assumed that accidents can happen to Sociopaths as well as those who aren't? If so, how would a Sociopath react to the accidental death of her daughter?

Part of me still strongly feels that this was an accident.

 

[GirlinCentralFL]

This is the latest shenaningan that JB is up to:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-casey-anthony-010509,0,7280479.story

 

[Wudge]

Most people here refer to Casey as a Sociopath. Can it be assumed that accidents can happen to Sociopaths as well as those who aren't? If so, how would a Sociopath react to the accidental death of her daughter?

Part of me still strongly feels that this was an accident.

Yes. That would be a reliable assumption, because sociopaths and accidents are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Marina2]

snipped from wikipedia article:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system, also called the "Burden of Proof". This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangably with reasonable doubt, but this extends far beyond the latter, to the extent many believe it an impossible standard. Reasonable doubt is therefore used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

I'm assuming this is the legal definition of reasonable doubt. If so, the facts surrounding this case are enough to make me, a reasonable person, believe KC is guilty. Granted, I've not heard all the prosecution evidence nor heard the defense dispute the evidence. After KC's defense is presented I may have a doubt but not to the extent that my belief in her guilt is changed. If that's the case, I could legally vote guilty. Is this right?
Before everyone says it, I concede that I would never be picked to sit on this jury because of my preconception of her guilt but, I'm assuming those on the jury will be presented with much the same evidence we know of along with evidence we don't know of. The same jury will hear KC's defense and may have doubt but I don't think it will change their minds as to her guilt. Even with some doubt, they can legally vote guilty, right? IOW, by the legal definition of reasonable doubt, they don't have to be absolutely certain, do they?

 

[Wudge]

snipped from wikipedia article:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system, also called the "Burden of Proof". This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangably with reasonable doubt, but this extends far beyond the latter, to the extent many believe it an impossible standard. Reasonable doubt is therefore used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

I'm assuming this is the legal definition of reasonable doubt. If so, the facts surrounding this case are enough to make me, a reasonable person, believe KC is guilty. Granted, I've not heard all the prosecution evidence nor heard the defense dispute the evidence. After KC's defense is presented I may have a doubt but not to the extent that my belief in her guilt is changed. If that's the case, I could legally vote guilty. Is this right?
Before everyone says it, I concede that I would never be picked to sit on this jury because of my preconception of her guilt but, I'm assuming those on the jury will be presented with much the same evidence we know of along with evidence we don't know of. The same jury will hear KC's defense and may have doubt but I don't think it will change their minds as to her guilt. Even with some doubt, they can legally vote guilty, right? IOW, by the legal definition of reasonable doubt, they don't have to be absolutely certain, do they?

You believe Casey is guilty of which of the State's charges (premeditated murder or child abuse)?

 

[Pedrosmom]

Since LE spent so much time using the information given by Casey during these interviews as their preliminary search for Caylee, I cannot see how they could be excluded.

It could come in through Yuri testimony. Unless defense can offer proof that interview was forced, Casey offered the info as in a case of a missing/kidnapped child. I don't see how they can keep it out. Casey had the opportunity to shut up and didn't. Dumb.

 

[Marina2]

You believe Casey is guilty of which of the State's charges (premeditated murder or child abuse)?

IMO, she's guilty of felony murder. Merely speculation on my part though.

 

[Pedrosmom]

snipped from wikipedia article:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system, also called the "Burden of Proof". This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangably with reasonable doubt, but this extends far beyond the latter, to the extent many believe it an impossible standard. Reasonable doubt is therefore used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

I'm assuming this is the legal definition of reasonable doubt. If so, the facts surrounding this case are enough to make me, a reasonable person, believe KC is guilty. Granted, I've not heard all the prosecution evidence nor heard the defense dispute the evidence. After KC's defense is presented I may have a doubt but not to the extent that my belief in her guilt is changed. If that's the case, I could legally vote guilty. Is this right?
Before everyone says it, I concede that I would never be picked to sit on this jury because of my preconception of her guilt but, I'm assuming those on the jury will be presented with much the same evidence we know of along with evidence we don't know of. The same jury will hear KC's defense and may have doubt but I don't think it will change their minds as to her guilt. Even with some doubt, they can legally vote guilty, right? IOW, by the legal definition of reasonable doubt, they don't have to be absolutely certain, do they?

The defense doesn't have to present a single witness, or a any defense for that matter. They don't have to call a single witness. They can close by saying the prosecution didn't meet it's burden of proof. It would be, in this case, the kiss of death for Casey if they don't come up with a defense. I do believe that defense will involve a degree of insanity due to blah blah blah.

 

[desertmom]

I don't remember seeing where Tony said this either, can someone please give me a link? I must have missed a part of his interview.
I want to go back and reread that portion that I missed because now as we move towards the trial, my inferences and theory on what happened and who did what or said what...isn't important, but the facts that are in black and white are important.
TIA.

I'm off to the dreaded dentist, so I won't have time to look for this until later, but it seems to me that it was one of Tony's roommates that said they didn't think their apartment was a good environment for a small child. I don't know if by that statement, it became a theory that Tony said that KC could come, but not Caylee. I looked and I did not see where Tony specificaly said this in his interview with LE. Anyone else know?