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

[GeekyGirl]

I won't flame you Just wanted to point out (not to you specifically) that leaving a child in a hot car is a crime. Accidental drowning is more common, I think, and would garner more sympathy from the jurors. Leaving a kid in a hot car has happened quite a bit, but usually it's because those who do it are partying and don't want to bring the kid in with them.

It is, but it wouldn't meet the standards of aggravated child abuse, at least to my understanding, which would be required for a felony murder conviction, and it would be hard to prove it was a premeditated act, which is required for a first degree conviction. Again, I could be wrong on this, but that's the way I interpret the jury instruction. All a moot point I suppose, since that's not even being offered up as a defense here, but interesting none the less.

 

[Nali87]

Not Guilty- state didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt many things. Manner and cause of death. Premeditated-even as crazy as a loon as she is, no proof exists she planned to kill her daughter. Responsible for it 100%. Accidental or not Casey Anthony did not do right by her daughter. If on the jury I couldn't sentence her to death. I think I would have tried on on some lessor charges first. False reporting of the child's death/missing status. Not cooperating with the investigation. Lying to police. All the things that are provable. If they waited they would have a better case for murder. The State can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally killed her daughter and then constructed this farce. They can prove the farce but the murder still eludes them. I love Dr G she did great but she couldn't say for certain what caused her death. The cause is vital as it proves intent or accident. Casey is so selfish that she would not call the police or an ambulance if she found Caylee dead. She would be more concerned about herself and how it would affect her than any concern for Caylee. Can I see her covering it up and lying about it. Seems that is how she handles all unpleasant things in life cover it up and lie about it.

She is charged with those things. The state doesn't have to prove how (as long as it's a crime (why the focus on chloroform and ducttape) she died exactly. Premeditation is also not a requirement for felony murder in first degree.

 

[Turnadot]

Those are good points, Cathy, especially KC being too selfish to call for help if she found Caylee dead.

It's pretty clear this case isn't open and shut.

 

[Nali87]

It is, but it wouldn't meet the standards of aggravated child abuse, at least to my understanding, which would be required for a felony murder conviction, and it would be hard to prove it was a premeditated act, which is required for a first degree conviction. Again, I could be wrong on this, but that's the way I interpret the jury instruction. All a moot point I suppose, since that's not even being offered up as a defense here, but interesting none the less.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Child Abuse, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant)

Give as applicable, choose one.
a. committed aggravated battery upon (victim.

b. willfully tortured (victim).

c. maliciously punished (victim).

d. willfully and unlawfully caged (victim).

e. knowingly or willfully committed child abuse upon (victim) and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

2. (Victim) was under the age of 18 years.

Definitions. Give as applicable.


In order to prove that an aggravated battery was committed, the State must prove the following:

1. (Defendant) intentionally

Give as applicable.
a. touched or struck (victim) against the will of (victim).

b. caused bodily harm to (victim).

2. In so doing, (defendant) intentionally or knowingly caused [great bodily harm] [permanent disability] [permanent disfigurement] or [used a deadly weapon].


A weapon is a "deadly weapon" if it is used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

"Willfully" means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

"Maliciously" means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.

Give in all cases if 1(e) is alleged.
"Child Abuse" means [the intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child] [an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child] [active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child].

 

[GeekyGirl]

Those are actually very good points. I think if Casey was rich and could afford a decent defense lawyer, she might've actually walked. Mostly because Caylee's remains were so damaged. In my opinion though, the "chloroform" searches and the fact that "chloroform" was found in the car proves at least "aggravated child abuse" and aggravated child abuse is a felony. Since Caylee died because of the abuse, that's enough for a conviction based on felony murder in 1st degree, if I'm not mistaken. I think in such a circumstansial case, you really have to take all the evidence into account. But those are actually very good points.

But again, to me, they've confused the issue by not picking one theory of COD and sticking with it. Yes, if she used chloroform, it would be aggravated child abuse and thus sufficient for felony murder, but IMO they seem to be saying "look, if you don't like the duct tape theory, here's another one for you" which means even the state has reasonable doubt about how she died. Circumstantial evidence isn't inherently bad, but it's risky because they really need to create a clear picture of the theory of the crime in order to eliminate reasonable doubt. I don't know if this makes sense, but I don't know how to describe it... I feel like I'm missing the thread that ties everything together. Lots of good evidence, just very disjointed in my eyes.

 

[Taibah]

I have to say I believe she's guilty of Felony murder but not premeditated. Though I know she looked up chloroform on the computer and the trunk had high concentration of it, the leap to say that it was used on Caylee was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At least in my eyes.

So for me that knocks off the premeditated, but the aggravating circumstances and other felony charges make it 1st degree felony murder for me

Do I personally believe she had planned it, yes and I believe she was planning on killing George and Cindy as well so maybe I'm a loon

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO The cause of death is really irrelevant. It's enough to simply believe The manner of death was homicide and it was deliberate and at Casey's hands.

 

[cecybeans]

I think it may be easy to confuse "beyond a reasonable doubt" here with "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And beyond a reasonable doubt can also be influenced by "probability of guilt". In this case, without any other evidence, I think it would be safe, despite the particulars that may be missing, this defendant has a very high probability of guilt. If the defense can show no other with equal or greater probability, I'd have to think the jury would convict. The lack of particulars may influence the difference between Murder One and Aggravated Manslaughter, but I don't think it will lead in any way to an Innocent verdict. The chloroform and violence google searches would indicate some kind of premeditation, and the fact duct tape was placed on the face also falls within the parameters of premeditated because it gives time for reflection. The state can prove she did the searches we know that. And I just don't see a jury weighing her character with her father's in terms of putting duct tape on a baby's face. The jury has seen with their own eyes how cold and cruel she can be to her family when she was in jail. It's not a stretch to think she could do that to her daughter and not feel much. I don't think the jury will buy the fact that she was partying around out of grief; they will interpret it as cold and her lies as self-serving and calculating and designed to cover up. All skill sets for premeditation.

 

[CharlestonGal]

Are those requirements for a guilty 1st degree murder verdict though?

As quoted from the first post:

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

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable.
2.
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 (victim).]"In the case of #1, yes the victim is dead. I think there is no question of that at this point.

2a - The defendant was engaged in the commission of a crime, in this case aggravated child abuse. The question is did the prosecution prove ICA committed aggravated child abuse? Did they prove ICA was the person who placed duct tape on the face of Caylee and that the duct tape is what killed her? I think it's a fairly logical conclusion, but I did not see evidence of that beyond a reasonable doubt.

2b - same as 2a.

3a - [(Defendant) was the person who actually killed (victim).]
Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that ICA was the person who actually killed Caylee? Did the evidence show that ICA was the one who perpetrated 2a and/or 2b if 2a and/or 2b actually was proven to have occurred?

I think the prosecution has put together the best circumstantial case they could based on what they had, but the lack of a crime scene, time of death, and cause of death creates problems in both 2 and 3.

These are the guidelines the jury must follow; and while ICAs personal, ethical, and moral behavior before and after the crime are highly suspicious and deplorable, her conduct doesn't really prove any of the elements of 2 or 3as they must be considered by the jury.

They are going to have a hard time, IMO. They just don't know all the things we know. Circumstantial cases are always iffy and can go either way, and a lot of the outcome depends on how strictly the jurors adhere to the elements of the charges alleged and how demanding they are of proof of each of those elements.

The outcome of this case will be interesting.

 

[GeekyGirl]

To prove the crime of Aggravated Child Abuse, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant)

Give as applicable, choose one.
a. committed aggravated battery upon (victim.

b. willfully tortured (victim).

c. maliciously punished (victim).

d. willfully and unlawfully caged (victim).

e. knowingly or willfully committed child abuse upon (victim) and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

2. (Victim) was under the age of 18 years.

Definitions. Give as applicable.


In order to prove that an aggravated battery was committed, the State must prove the following:

1. (Defendant) intentionally

Give as applicable.
a. touched or struck (victim) against the will of (victim).

b. caused bodily harm to (victim).

2. In so doing, (defendant) intentionally or knowingly caused [great bodily harm] [permanent disability] [permanent disfigurement] or [used a deadly weapon].


A weapon is a "deadly weapon" if it is used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

"Willfully" means knowingly, intentionally, and purposely.

"Maliciously" means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.

Give in all cases if 1(e) is alleged.
"Child Abuse" means [the intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child] [an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child] [active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child].

Again, the sticky word is "willfully". Unfortunately, I've seen the "I was only going to run in the store for a second and got distracted" and "I was getting out of the car, and the phone rang, I got distracted and I just plain forgot about my kid" defenses used quite successfully. Those have fallen under the category of negligent, not aggravated child abuse. State of mind is often a difficult thing to prove.

 

[Kentjbkent]

It's number 2 I have a problem with, at least with the evidence presented to the jury up to this point. I'm honestly frustrated with the amount of time they spent on the Internet searches and the chloroform because to me, that just underlined the point that they don't really know what caused her death. The duct tape is disturbing, but they can't prove it was placed prior to her death, only that it was placed prior to decomposition. A rational person would conclude that there's no reason to apply it after she died, but Casey hasn't been shown to be a rational person. They've portrayed her as someone who ignores reality when it doesn't suit her, goes to great lengths to lie to avoid any sort of responsibility even in the face of a mountain of evidence and often makes impulsive decisions that, honestly, boggle my mind. I can't get rid of the nagging doubt that even if something did happen to Caylee because Casey was negligent in some way, i.e. leaving her in a hot car, drowning etc., her first instinct would be to try and cover it up, because it's consistent with her past behavior.Even an accidental death would have repercussions for her, and she avoids repercussions at all costs. Lying and covering up is her MO. I said I could vote manslaughter, because I do believe they've shown Caylee was in her care at the time of her death, and therefore it's reasonable to assume she's cupable, but I can't quite get to the criminal act part. Again, this is only based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, not what I've gleaned from other places such as this board. Hope this helps explain my thought process. Thanks for all the great discussion, and for not flaming me I know how emotional this is, and how much time and energy so many of you have invested in this case.

Here is what I am struggling to understand.

Why would it be her first instinct to try and cover up a negligent accident? How would it be consistent with her past behavior?

Casey has certainly been caught committing bad behavior and caught in lies, but I cannot think of ONE incident where she tried to "cover up"!

Exactly HOW did she attempt to "cover up" stealing from her Grandmother? She didn't....When caught, she just copped an attitude...

Exactly HOW did she attempt to "cover up" stealing from Amy H? She certainly didn't..

I also do not understand why...even considering her twisted mindframe....why she would have felt the need to cover up an "accidental death" even if she was negligent. What was she at risk of? Had she called 911...or her parents....she certainly would NOT have spent the last three years in JAIL...

And I do NOT buy the "she was afraid of what her mother would do"....Casey has never shown any sign of being afraid of ANYONE when she has gotten caught committing a crime (like stealing from Grandma)....and do you really believe that she assumed her mother would NEVER forgive her for neglecting Caylee resulting in her drowning, but Mom WOULD eventually forgive her IF she got caught dumping Caylee's body on Suburban in an attempt to "cover up"??

Sure wish someone who believes it is POSSIBLE that Caylee drowned would answer these questions....

 

[Nali87]

But again, to me, they've confused the issue by not picking one theory of COD and sticking with it. Yes, if she used chloroform, it would be aggravated child abuse and thus sufficient for felony murder, but IMO they seem to be saying "look, if you don't like the duct tape theory, here's another one for you" which means even the state has reasonable doubt about how she died. Circumstantial evidence isn't inherently bad, but it's risky because they really need to create a clear picture of the theory of the crime in order to eliminate reasonable doubt. I don't know if this makes sense, but I don't know how to describe it... I feel like I'm missing the thread that ties everything together. Lots of good evidence, just very disjointed in my eyes.

I don't think the state has actually tied everything together yet though. I mean, obviously we've heard most of the evidence but no conclusions were drawn yet. Even when, for example, the tattoo. They didn't say "While her child's body was in the woods, Ms. Anthony was out getting "Beautiful" life tattoos" I think whoever does the closing statement will do a good job in making it clear for the jury that: a child was missing for 31 days while the mother lied about her whereabouts, chloroform searches were done on a computer mostly used by Casey Anthony, high level of chloroform were found in the trunk, decomposition was found in the trunk, the body was disposed wrapped like trash in laundry bag found at Anthony home, that Casey wanted freedom, that ducttape was applied on Caylee's mouth and nose. They will then stress that every normal behaving mother would try to save their kid and report an accident (like they sneaked in with Dr. G). After that, I think they'll say since the defense couldn't/didn't insert any evidence/psych evaluation that Casey isn't normal, she was perfectly sane when this all went down. And I think they'll stress that the defense has no plausible explanation for what went down. There's ALWAYS different ways to interpret things, murder, in my opinion, based on all the evidence is the only logical conclusion most logical conclusions.

 

[Nali87]

CHARLESTON, could you bold your answers for easy reading?

 

[Kentjbkent]

IMO The cause of death is really irrelevant. It's enough to simply believe The manner of death was homicide and it was deliberate and at Casey's hands.

The cause of death is a completely moot point, in my opinion, at this point.

It is virtually impossible to prove based on lack of remains after 6 months in the elements.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and the defense was required to prove cause of death....drowning according to them....they could not do this either (again due to limited remains).

The prosecution is NOT required to prove Cause of Death and cannot do so.

And neither is the Defense...nor can they.

Moot point.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I don't think the state has actually tied everything together yet though. I mean, obviously we've heard most of the evidence but no conclusions were drawn yet. Even when, for example, the tattoo. They didn't say "While her child's body was in the woods, Ms. Anthony was out getting "Beautiful" life tattoos" I think whoever does the closing statement will do a good job in making it clear for the jury that: a child was missing for 31 days while the mother lied about her whereabouts, chloroform searches were done on a computer mostly used by Casey Anthony, high level of chloroform were found in the trunk, decomposition was found in the trunk, the body was disposed wrapped like trash in laundry bag found at Anthony home, that Casey wanted freedom, that ducttape was applied on Caylee's mouth and nose. They will then stress that every normal behaving mother would try to save their kid and report an accident (like they sneaked in with Dr. G). After that, I think they'll say since the defense couldn't/didn't insert any evidence/psych evaluation that Casey isn't normal, she was perfectly sane when this all went down. And I think they'll stress that the defense has no plausible explanation for what went down. There's ALWAYS different ways to interpret things, murder, in my opinion, based on all the evidence is the only logical conclusion most logical conclusions.

Which is why I said, at this point in the trial. I'm not saying that ultimately there won't be enough for a murder conviction, but if I were a juror, and asked to vote based only on the trial so far, I don't think I could justify a murder conviction. MOO of course.

 

[CharlestonGal]

CHARLESTON, could you bold your answers for easy reading?

I went back and bolded the original first post I quoted. I meant to do that before I posted it. Sorry!

 

[The Farm]

GUILTY And there was Premeditation there which to me will equal the Death Penalty.

As far as what the end result will be I have no idea.
And yes I feel bad for her parents~~~but let's not lose what this is all about.
A little defenseless girl names Caylee.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The cause of death is a completely moot point, in my opinion, at this point.

It is virtually impossible to prove based on lack of remains after 6 months in the elements.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and the defense was required to prove cause of death....drowning according to them....they could not do this either (again due to limited remains).

The prosecution is NOT required to prove Cause of Death and cannot do so.

And neither is the Defense...nor can they.

Moot point.

Not being snarky, but how can one come to the conclusion that the death was the result of a criminal act if you don't know what caused the death? That's precisely why this is such a difficult case to prosecute, and more than likely why the defense risked going to trial. The defense isn't required to prove anything, only provide reasonable doubt that the state's theory of the crime is incorrect.

 

[Nali87]

We'll do this again after the defense. I've decided to keep watching JB's shenanigans. It would be hard to debate without actually knowing all that was said, lol.

 

[CharlestonGal]

Which is why I said, at this point in the trial. I'm not saying that ultimately there won't be enough for a murder conviction, but if I were a juror, and asked to vote based only on the trial so far, I don't think I could justify a murder conviction. MOO of course.

I'm in the same boat you are. If I were forced to decide this case based only on what was presented to the jury thus far, I personally would struggle. And I do think this jury will struggle to more or lesser degrees. I think the outcome will depend on how willing the jury is to speculate and theorize. Some are, some aren't. Some will go with the flow of what seems logical to them (either based on or in spite of the evidence); some will practically demand the whole crime be caught on video in technicolor; some will be in between.

And who knows what kind of additional confusion the defense will throw in there between now and deliberation time. I think the water is about to become muddier by the day.