*MERGED THREADS*GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? (Florida jury instructions added)

[ontariolynn13]

Guilty of murder in the First Degree.

I have a question if someone can answer it it would be appreciated, as our laws are different, in Ontario can Casy get LWOP if convicted of
First Degree Felony Murder, if she can, that would be my vote, as I feel she gave her the Chlor, once too many times, but did not say to herself, I am going to kill you right now, but she alwayd gave it to her I believe and then put her in the Trunk to sleep, but when she opened it she was DEAD, that is why I am at this point, I could change my mind still it is not over.

Thanks Fellow Friends!! (across the boarder)

 

[krkrjx]

First Degree Felony Murder because I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was premeditated. I do believe, however, that the abuse of this child that resulted in her death was premeditated.

 

[my2sense]

Before the trial started, I believed that there was an accidental death that ICA covered up to look like a kidnapping/homicide. I believed the motive was her extreme fear that her mother wouldn't love her anymore. I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND. Anyone who can do to their parents what ICA has done to hers is cold and inhuman enough to commit intentional homicide. I now believe she deliberately killed Caylee. Guilty 1st Degree.

 

[marspiter]

I vote guilty of First Degree Murder.

I feel the SA laid out the fact that Caylee is in fact dead. Which the defense agreed.

Two Casey was present at the time of that death. Which the Defense agreed.

Caylee's death was the direct result of Casey's actions. Which was laid out to me with the Chloroform and the Duct tape. Both of which could have killed. Remembering the state is not obligated to prove how Caylee died.

Casey was the only one that had access to all the items presented in the SA's case as well as having access to Caylee. The "evidence" of GA being there and all the other wild accusations are not evidence as it was presented in OS. Which based on the present evidence Casey was the only one that had access as stated above.

The computer searches, chloroform, and duct tape all go towards premeditation. Premed can take place in mere moments of time. So applying chloroform and duct tape to the child allowed sufficient time for Casey to think about her actions during it's application. As well as researching this manner of death months before the death occurred.

Casey lied to cover up Caylee's death. Which the defense admitted is correct. Which goes to consciousness of guilt.

At the time the body was dumped on Suburban Casey was the only one with access to the pontiac and is the only one who knew of the Pontiac's where abouts after the disposing of the body.

All of Casey's action after the death of her daughter all lead to consciousness of guilt.

The Tattoo ultimately shows motive as well as her actions leading up to and after Caylee's death. She was a mother tired of the burden of caring for her child and was cold and callous enough to take her life to reach her goal of a "Beautiful Life".

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I PROMISE I am not trying to engage you in argument or change your opinion at this point, but could you explain your reasoning in believing you could not justify murder at this point? ( REALLY am trying to consider another's opinion based on facts known by jury)

SA stated in opening statements that they believe Caylee was murdered by her mother.

Defense stated in opening statements that Caylee drowned accidentally in the swimming pool.

Murder vs. Drowning (accident) according to opposing attorneys.

So if you do NOT believe Caylee was murdered, then I would assume that you believe it is more likely that Casey is telling the truth and Caylee drowned accidentally.

At THIS point, what leads you to believe this?

I voted not guilty.

To convict KC of murder, the state wants me to believe that somehow, somewhere, sometime, KC either drugged Caylee to death, or suffocated her to death with duct tape, or both, then drove around with her in the trunk of the car for somewhere between 2 1/2 to 7 days, then threw her, tripled bagged into the woods like trash, with a heart shaped sticker placed on the duct tape, all because Caylee was an inconvenience to her going out to party.

To prove the above, the state proves she looked up chloroform (the computer search testimony was confusing), neckbreaking, self defense, shovel, etc. Then 3 months or so later, either used the chloroform or some other drug, then duct taped Caylees air passages or just duct taped Caylee's air passages killing her. They don't know when this was, just sometime in mid June, and they don't know where KC did this, only that at some point in time KC carried her dead child in the trunk of her car for 2.5 to 7 days. The state went to great lengths to prove, how much she lies, that now free of her burden she went to several parties, and celebrated her new found freedom by getting a Bella Vita tattoo.

There was a white maggot filled trash bag, in a trunk, and the trunk was smelling of decompostion. The opinion of many who smelled the trunk was that this decomposition was human decomposition. To prove it was human decomposition, the state provides a single strand of hair with apparent decomp, an air sample with a shockingly high amount of chloroform, a trace of butyric acid, and 3 to 5 markers (out of 30) of human decomposition. The air samples collected were not collected by the expert who analyzed the results, but instead collected by people who had never collected air samples before. Also found was an adipocere like substance that may be from human decomposition in the white trash bag on paper towels. No decomp fluids were found in the trunk. A bug expert, with the help of a single fly leg, is able to give the opinion that there was a dead body in the trunk from 3 to 7 days.

The duct tape found attached to the hair mass is the most incriminating part of the states case. Yet, it showed no dna of any kind, and no fingerprints. It is also very debateable as to whether the duct tape was ever really used on Caylee. A heart shaped sticker was found in the area, but the heart shaped residue no longer exists. The state even provided a photoshop demonstration of duct tape superimposed over Caylee's photo and skull, with KC smiling on the side of the photo. To me, this was an act of desperation by the prosecution, and a disgusting display.

There is very little solid unquestionable evidence in this case. There is a ton of questionable circumstantial evidence though. They talk about pieces of the puzzle, and when you look at it as a whole you can see the entire picture. In my opinion, there are only a few clear pieces of the puzzle, and many, many blurry pieces. The few clear pieces do not give me enough of the picture to know what really happened. The picture is still too blurry for me to give someone the death penalty.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[mrsu]

Snipped for space.

Mrsu, chloroforming a 2 year old who does not wake up from the drugging is actually classed as aggravated child abuse. Under Florida law that makes her GUILTY of murder in the first degree.

All that will be spelled out to the jury in the instructions. I think she is toast!

I said I would vote guilty in my first post in this thread, I just wasn't sure myself if it was premeditated or accidental. And I didn't know if that mattered or not. As I read, the state is not required to prove premediation, so there you have it. GUILTY!

Maybe I'm sensitive today, but ya'll are making me feel like I must be so dumb to think there is a VERY small chance it could be accidental. :/

 

[goldenlover]

I could not vote first degree murder on this case. They do not have enough even curcumstantial evidence. This is a death penalty/LWOP case. The jury must err on the side of the defendant if there is any question. There is simply no evidence accept that the defendant is a liar.

 

[celticthyme]

Casey Anthony has been indicted for the murder of her daughter Caylee Anthony

1. The first count is for first-degree murder, a capital offense that is punishable by the death penalty.

This charge alleges that Casey Anthony caused the death of Caylee “from a premeditated design” between June 15 and July 16. Those dates correspond to the last time Caylee was seen and when she was reported missing. The indictment offers no other information on how, why or when.
2. Count two is aggravated child abuse.
This alleges that between the same dates Casey Anthony “did knowingly or willfully…causes reat bodily harm, permanent disfigurement or permanent disability to Caylee Marie Anthony…by intentionally inflicting physical injury…or by intentionally committing an act or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably expected to result in physical injury.”
3 Count three is aggravated manslaughter of a child.
This count alleges that Casey Anthony caused Caylee’s death by failing to provide “the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain Caylee Marie Anthony’s physical and mental health” or that she did not make “a reasonable effort” to protect Caylee from someone else abuses, neglecting or exploiting her.
4 – 7 Counts four through seven are all “providing false information to a law enforcement officer.”
Each count lists a time when Casey Anthony is alleged to have lied to investigators about Caylee.
Count four says she lied to Orange County Sheriff’s Office Detective Yuri Melich when she said she worked at Universal Studios in 2008.
Count five alleges she lied to Melich when she said she left Caylee with a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez.
Count six alleges she lied to Melich when she said she told two former Universal Studios employees that Caylee was missing.
And count seven alleges Anthony lied to Melich when she said she received phone call from Caylee on July 15
__________________

 

[marspiter]

I voted not guilty.

To convict KC of murder, the state wants me to believe that somehow, somewhere, sometime, KC either drugged Caylee to death, or suffocated her to death with duct tape, or both, then drove around with her in the trunk of the car for somewhere between 2 1/2 to 7 days, then threw her, tripled bagged into the woods like trash, with a heart shaped sticker placed on the duct tape, all because Caylee was an inconvenience to her going out to party.

To prove the above, the state proves she looked up chloroform (the computer search testimony was confusing), neckbreaking, self defense, shovel, etc. Then 3 months or so later, either used the chloroform or some other drug, then duct taped Caylees air passages or just duct taped Caylee's air passages killing her. They don't know when this was, just sometime in mid June, and they don't know where KC did this, only that at some point in time KC carried her dead child in the trunk of her car for 2.5 to 7 days. The state went to great lengths to prove, how much she lies, that now free of her burden she went to several parties, and celebrated her new found freedom by getting a Bella Vita tattoo.

There was a white maggot filled trash bag, in a trunk, and the trunk was smelling of decompostion. The opinion of many who smelled the trunk was that this decomposition was human decomposition. To prove it was human decomposition, the state provides a single strand of hair with apparent decomp, an air sample with a shockingly high amount of chloroform, a trace of butyric acid, and 3 to 5 markers (out of 30) of human decomposition. The air samples collected were not collected by the expert who analyzed the results, but instead collected by people who had never collected air samples before. Also found was an adipocere like substance that may be from human decomposition in the white trash bag on paper towels. No decomp fluids were found in the trunk. A bug expert, with the help of a single fly leg, is able to give the opinion that there was a dead body in the trunk from 3 to 7 days.

The duct tape found attached to the hair mass is the most incriminating part of the states case. Yet, it showed no dna of any kind, and no fingerprints. It is also very debateable as to whether the duct tape was ever really used on Caylee. A heart shaped sticker was found in the area, but the heart shaped residue no longer exists. The state even provided a photoshop demonstration of duct tape superimposed over Caylee's photo and skull, with KC smiling on the side of the photo. To me, this was an act of desperation by the prosecution, and a disgusting display.

There is very little solid unquestionable evidence in this case. There is a ton of questionable circumstantial evidence though. They talk about pieces of the puzzle, and when you look at it as a whole you can see the entire picture. In my opinion, there are only a few clear pieces of the puzzle, and many, many blurry pieces. The few clear pieces do not give me enough of the picture to know what really happened. The picture is still too blurry for me to give someone the death penalty.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

That is not the states burden. The state is not required to prove a case beyond any questions, or doubt. They are not required to prove the case beyond the shadow of doubt. They are to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Seems like semantics but nothing can ever really be proven to a 100%, hence why science uses terms like "consistent with".

One must also understand that with out direct evidence (a witness to the crime) that all cases are based on circumstantial evidence. Very very few cases have direct evidence especially murder cases. When you divide circumstantial evidence into it's part various parts. No one piece of that evidence is going to be strong enough for a conviction. That is why jurors must look at the totality of the evidence as a whole.

I think there is some confusion in the public as to what must be proven in a court of law, and what ideally should be prove in a court of law. Yes I would like to be 100% sure that the person being convict is guilty, but in reality your never going to have that.

Also it should be noted that some have an agenda to confuse such issues as to what is the reality and what is ideal. Certain talking heads for example.

 

[Turnadot]

I said I would vote guilty in my first post in this thread, I just wasn't sure myself if it was premeditated or accidental. And I didn't know if that mattered or not. As I read, the state is not required to prove premediation, so there you have it. GUILTY!

Maybe I'm sensitive today, but ya'll are making me feel like I must be so dumb to think there is a VERY small chance it could be accidental. :/

Ack!! Please don't feel dumb.

Those who believe there's a small chance there was an accident are just like the rest who believe it wasn't - - no one wants to believe a mother could intentionally kill her precious baby.

 

[GeekyGirl]

how lucky for Casey that Caylee just happened to accidentally die the day she had no sitter to go to TonEs house. notice the accident didnt phase her enough to show even the slightest emotion that day for Caylee. An accident would truly rock your world. no way no matter how u dissociate would you be fine and dandy and ready for date night hours after an accident. and please dont think im being rude to you. im truly not. i respect all thoughts and opinions just sometime feel the need to respond with a differnt thought.

I've worked in ER's and in EMS for over 15 years, and I've learned never to say never when talking about how people react to traumatic things. MOO

 

[iluvmua]

99.9% of murder cases have no witness to the crime. Casey is guilty and she ALONE planned to kill Caylee.

This was premeditated 1 thousand percent.

 

[Turnadot]

I've worked in ER's and in EMS for over 15 years, and I've learned never to say never when talking about how people react to traumatic things. MOO

I've heard variations of this opinion from people who've worked in medicine (ERs and the like), that basically, they've seen it all and we don't always act "right" or how we assume unless we've experienced something traumatic. I hope I never have to test that for myself.

Just musing here, but I wonder if there's a tendency for those of us who've never experienced trauma to graft how we think we might react onto the person experiencing the trauma and judging them based upon that. I think I probably do.

 

[GeekyGirl]

That is not the states burden. The state is not required to prove a case beyond any questions, or doubt. They are not required to prove the case beyond the shadow of doubt. They are to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Seems like semantics but nothing can ever really be proven to a 100%, hence why science uses terms like "consistent with".

One must also understand that with out direct evidence (a witness to the crime) that all cases are based on circumstantial evidence. Very very few cases have direct evidence especially murder cases. When you divide circumstantial evidence into it's part various parts. No one piece of that evidence is going to be strong enough for a conviction. That is why jurors must look at the totality of the evidence as a whole.

I think there is some confusion in the public as to what must be proven in a court of law, and what ideally should be prove in a court of law. Yes I would like to be 100% sure that the person being convict is guilty, but in reality your never going to have that.

Also it should be noted that some have an agenda to confuse such issues as to what is and what is ideal. Certain talking heads for example.

I don't think the OP asked for it to be proven 100% or beyond a shadow of a doubt, just that the evidence, as presented so far, doesn't meet the burden of proof for him/her. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest legal standard of proof, higher that than preponderance of the evidence points to something, which is what I feel they've done. Actually, maybe not even that...

 

[GeekyGirl]

I've heard variations of this opinion from people who've worked in medicine (ERs and the like), that basically, they've seen it all and we don't always act "right" or how we assume unless we've experienced something traumatic. I hope I never have to test that for myself.

Just musing here, but I wonder if there's a tendency for those of us who've never experienced trauma to graft how we think we might react onto the person experiencing the trauma and judging them based upon that. I think I probably do.

I think we all probably do... I know how I react in other people's traumas, but how I'd act if it affected me personally? Who's to say? I just everyone needs to be careful when they say "Well if A happened George would have done B" or things of that nature because the truth is, we really don't know that. Even functional, rational people can do crazy and/or bizarre things under stress. MOO

 

[marspiter]

I've worked in ER's and in EMS for over 15 years, and I've learned never to say never when talking about how people react to traumatic things. MOO

True there is no book of rules on how someone should react to a tragedy. However I believe Dr. G laid it out when she said Casey had a moral and legal obligation to call 911/render aid. That and highlighted that all accidental drownings that are discovered in Orange county are reported to 911.

Also I believe there is a difference between a reaction to a tragedy that was accidental and actions that show consciousness of guilt.

I'm reminded somewhat of a senator explaining *advertiser censored*. His statement was to the effect that he couldn't explain it but could certainly recognize it when he saw it.

I think many have recognized that Casey's actions after the death of her daughter are not bad coping skills but rather a consciousness of guilty.

 

[GeekyGirl]

True there is no book of rules on how someone should react to a tragedy. However I believe Dr. G laid it out when she said Casey had a moral and legal obligation to call 911/render aid. That and highlighted that all accidental drownings that are discovered in Orange county are reported to 911.

Also I believe there is a difference between a reaction to a tragedy that was accidental and actions that show consciousness of guilt.

I'm reminded somewhat of a senator explaining *advertiser censored*. His statement was to the effect that he couldn't explain it but could certainly recognize it when he saw it.

I think many have recognized that Casey's actions after the death of her daughter are not bad coping skills but rather a consciousness of guilty.

I'm not arguing that her actions after the fact don't show a consciousness of guilt, just that thinking she felt responsible Caylee's death doesn't mean that the death was a result of a criminal act vs. a negligent one, which is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Yes, I understand the felony murder rule, and I don't discount the fact that her death could have been the result of aggravated child abuse, but at this point I don't think I could say, based on the case so far, that I understand the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death well enough to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I believe it was caused by a criminal act (willful murder or ACA). I realize that's not a popular opinion, and that it's extremely frustrating to a lot of people, but that's my opinion.

 

[MissJames]

With respect to everyone's opinions, it seems the overwhelming opinion is that ICA is guilty of first degree murder.
JVM made a huge mistake yesterday when she said it would only take one juror voting not guilty for ICA to walk. Uhm,no.That would be a hung jury and the process would start over. I don't believe the State would agree to drop the charges. There would be another trial.

 

[marspiter]

I don't think the OP asked for it to be proven 100% or beyond a shadow of a doubt, just that the evidence, as presented so far, doesn't meet the burden of proof for him/her. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest legal standard of proof, higher that than preponderance of the evidence points to something, which is what I feel they've done. Actually, maybe not even that...

Your right those exact words were not used. However the comment made was "There is very little solid unquestionable evidence in this case".

Which I would assume (note my :twocents from this and other post's by the OP in the past to mean that they themselves hold a belief as to a standard of proof that is beyond that of the legal standard.

 

[MissJames]

I'm not arguing that her actions after the fact don't show a consciousness of guilt, just that thinking she felt responsible Caylee's death doesn't mean that the death was a result of a criminal act vs. a negligent one, which is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Yes, I understand the felony murder rule, and I don't discount the fact that her death could have been the result of aggravated child abuse, but at this point I don't think I could say, based on the case so far, that I understand the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death well enough to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I believe it was caused by a criminal act (willful murder or ACA). I realize that's not a popular opinion, and that it's extremely frustrating to a lot of people, but that's my opinion.

What would you need to see to give you enough evidence to say she is guilty? How much more? What's missing for you?