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

[Mohabi]

Guilty. I've sat on the fence for 3 years to be fair. I've sat on the fence and thought myself into KC (ok, I've tried to as hard as I could). I've cried with CA, cried for KC, cried for Caylee, had lots of sleepless nights, sat on the fence some more (against all reason). I fell off the fence just about the same time CA stopped looking for Zanny because I wanted to be fair and unbiased.

Guilty.
GUILTY.
G U I L T Y
G U I L T Y

of premeditated murder, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Eileen730]

Guilty!

I was never on the fence, Once i heard she was missing for 31 days was all i needed to hear and what
made it more so was the trip to Universal.



She is guilty as sin!

 

[Mohabi]

Guilty!

I was never on the fence, Once i heard she was missing for 31 days was all i needed to hear and what
made it more so was the trip to Universal.



She is guilty as sin!

I think from now on people won't be "guilty as sin". They'll be "as guilty as ICA".

 

[Nali87]

BBM...the thing is Cindy has been calling Casey an unfit mother to her face and threatening to take Caylee away from her. I doubt if it was an accident Cindy would be all rainbows and roses afterwards. Publically she would act like it wasn't Casey's fault but behind closed doors, I can totally see how Cindy would torment Casey with the "accident". Throw it in Casey's face at every opportunity to further solidify her arguement and emotionally manipulate Casey with "you were an unfit good for nothing mother", so I can see Casey going for an elaborate cover up instead of coming clean.

I don't know. Based on the phone call from jail, I think by then Casey's world probably revolved around Tony L. She didn't make any apologies to her mother for not knowing where Caylee is, for leaving Caylee with someone she didn't know, for leaving Caylee at the doorsteps of an apartment (what you might expect from someone who's scared or being emotionally manipulated by her mother). In my opinion, she appeared to be the angry dominating party in that phonecall. She sounded frustrated, wanting only Tony's phone numbers. If her number one concern would be not being blamed because she's scared of her mom, I think her attitude and tone of voice would've been totally different. Remember Casey telling her mother, very snarky like, that she just finished seeing her on television? I just can't see it. I can't see Casey being so afraid of Cindy that she'd rather throw a child away like trash to be chewed on by animals, than report an accident. Casey just doesn't seem like a doormat type of daughter. I CAN easily picture her wanting to be with Tony, even thinking that she could move in with Tony (which would take away your argument about CA tormenting Casey), and finally be free of all her responsibilities as a young mom if only Caylee wasn't around anymore. Casey's obsession with Tony (even the tattoo is in Italian) to me is a better motive than Casey supposedly being scared of Cindy.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I don't know. Based on the phone call from jail, I think by then Casey's world probably revolved around Tony L. She didn't make any apologies to her mother (what you might expect from someone who's scared or being emotionally manipulated by her mother). In my opinion, she appeared to be the angry dominating party in that phonecall. She sounded frustrated, wanting only Tony's phone numbers. If her number one concern would be not being blamed because she's scared of her mom, I think her attitude and tone of voice would've been totally different. Remember Casey telling her mother, very snarky like, that she just finished seeing her on television? I just can't see it. I can't see Casey being so afraid of Cindy that she'd rather throw a child away like trash to be chewed on by animals, than report an accident. Casey just doesn't seem like a doormat type of daughter. I CAN easily picture her wanting to be with Tony, even thinking that she could move in with Tony (which would take away your argument about CA tormenting Casey), and finally be free of all her responsibilities as a young mom. Casey's obsession with Tony (even the tattoo is in Italian) to me is a better motive than Casey supposedly being scared of Cindy.

IMO if there was an accident (and I'm not saying there was) Casey would try and cover it up, not because she was scared, but because she would be inconvenienced by it.

 

[Nali87]

IMO if there was an accident (and I'm not saying there was) Casey would try and cover it up, not because she was scared, but because she would be inconvenienced by it.

That doesn't fit either, imo. If we're disregarding the Casey was scared of Cindy theory, thenreporting an accident would've probably resulted in Casey receiving a lot sympathy from a lot of people. Friends and family alike. Even "fit" mothers can't always protect their children. Children drown in pools. It's not unheard of. Now, wrapping your child in ducttape, putting her in a laundry bag, driving around with her in your car, disposing of the body, having to constantly make up excuses to your family members and friends who naturally ask to see Caylee, seems to me more of an inconvenience to Casey than simply admitting "hey it was an accident, it could've happened to anyone". The fact that she went through 31 days of inconvenience proves to me this wasn't an accident. To follow your reasoning, if there was nothing to hide, Casey wouldn't have gone through all the trouble.

 

[GeekyGirl]

That doesn't fit either, imo. If we're disregarding the Casey was scared of Cindy theory, thenreporting an accident would've probably resulted in Casey receiving a lot sympathy from a lot of people. Friends and family alike. Even "fit" mothers can't always protect their children. Children drown in pools. It's not unheard of. Now, wrapping your child in ducttape, putting her in a laundry bag, driving around with her in your car, disposing of the body, having to constantly make up excuses to your family members and friends who naturally ask to see Caylee, seems to me more of an inconvenience to Casey than simply admitting "hey it was an accident, it could've happened to anyone". The fact that she went through 31 days of inconvenience proves to me this wasn't an accident. To follow your reasoning, if there was nothing to hide, Casey wouldn't have gone through all the trouble.

Perhaps I should have clarified... Death resulting from Casey's negligence... Not watching her when she should have or something along those lines. In the short term that would have been a PITA for her. I really think she thought she could get rid of the body, and that she was smart enough to find a way to lie her way out of it. She doesn't seem to think anything through, and certainly doesn't consider the long term consequences of her actions.

ETA: The thinking she could get rid of the body part applies to the death, regardless if it was negligence or murder.

 

[Nali87]

Perhaps I should have clarified... Death resulting from Casey's negligence... Not watching her when she should have or something along those lines. In the short term that would have been a PITA for her. I really think she thought she could get rid of the body, and that she was smart enough to find a way to lie her way out of it. She doesn't seem to think anything through, and certainly doesn't consider the long term consequences of her actions.

ETA: The thinking she could get rid of the body part applies to the death, regardless if it was negligence or murder.

You kind of lost me with the ETA. Care to rephrase? :crazy:

 

[MissJames]

ICA was constantly lying .If there was an accident I think she would have come up with a lie to fit that.....like "Dad left the ladder in the pool" or " I heard neighbor kids playing,they must have snuck in and left the ladder in the pool".
I just don't think she would go to such lengths to cover up an accident,even if it was neglect. She would have tried to lie her way out of it and been the grieving mother,all attention on her.

 

[GeekyGirl]

You kind of lost me with the ETA. Care to rephrase? :crazy:

Sorry I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't necessarily see the manner in which Casey handled the body as proof of a criminal act. I think it show a guilty conscious of some sort, but she'd have something to hide if Caylee died from an overt act or simply negligence. Hope that helps.

 

[Nali87]

ICA was constantly lying .If there was an accident I think she would have come up with a lie to fit that.....like "Dad left the ladder in the pool" or " I heard neighbor kids playing,they must have snuck in and left the ladder in the pool".
I just don't think she would go to such lengths to cover up an accident,even if it was neglect. She would have tried to lie her way out of it and been the grieving mother,all attention on her.

I think so as well. But because an autopsy would be able to prove cause of death, she had to get rid of the body.

 

[GeekyGirl]

ICA was constantly lying .If there was an accident I think she would have come up with a lie to fit that.....like "Dad left the ladder in the pool" or " I heard neighbor kids playing,they must have snuck in and left the ladder in the pool".
I just don't think she would go to such lengths to cover up an accident,even if it was neglect. She would have tried to lie her way out of it and been the grieving mother,all attention on her.

This sounds horrible, but even having to explain a drowning would have screwed up her plans for that evening. As I said, hypothetically I think she would seen her death simply as an inconvenience that had to be handled so she could do what she wanted.

 

[Nali87]

Sorry I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't necessarily see the manner in which Casey handled the body as proof of a criminal act. I think it show a guilty conscious of some sort, but she'd have something to hide if Caylee died from an overt act or simply negligence. Hope that helps.

Yeah, now I understand. ETA: After 12AM the translating part of my brain starts shutting down..

But why would she go through all the trouble to hide an easily provable drowning accident though? Casey lived in Florida, I'm sure she was aware that a lot of children tragically pass away that way in Florida and the parents aren't usually blamed. Add that to the fact that there wasn't any prior reports of abuse, I don't think she would've been charged with anything. Now accidently chloroforming your kid to death (for whatever reason, frustration, anger at her whining, wanting some peace of quiet) is aggravated child abuse. You don't chloroform children. Chloroform in Casey's system would've been impossible to explain away. Which in my opinion is why she got rid of Casey's body. But we can agree to disagree!

 

[wandering]

Guilty. I think the jury will do LWOP but can't the judge overrule that and give her the DP if he sees it more fit? Considering he has always given the DP in all his DP cases I believe he takes this very seriously (duh..lol) I think with how she acted during those 31 days and even up until today (and tomorrow, etc) the judge doesn't like that and will give the punishment that fits the crime

There is a federal law now, that only a jury can sentence someone to death; judges cannot overrule a jury. The judge, however, can sentence the convicted to LWOP, even if the jury recommends death.

 

[moodyblue]

This sounds horrible, but even having to explain a drowning would have screwed up her plans for that evening. As I said, hypothetically I think she would seen her death simply as an inconvenience that had to be handled so she could do what she wanted.

Exactly!!! This is so true. Although I don't believe she drowned.
Casey was already pizzed, and felt she was being stopped from doing what she wanted, and thats why her daughter is dead. (purposely killed IMO and not by drowning).

No way did she want to take any time from what she wanted to do that day, to report anything.

 

[wandering]

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.

They don't need to produce a clear picture, the duct tape is obviously the COD. You are asking for things that only the perp would know. Many convictions have occurred without a video of the crime, namely Scott Peterson.

 

[GeekyGirl]

They don't need to produce a clear picture, the duct tape is obviously the COD. You are asking for things that only the perp would know. Many convictions have occurred without a video of the crime, namely Scott Peterson.

Did I miss something? The duct tape being COD isn't obvious, or else it would be listed on the autopsy as such. I've never said I would require a video a crime, or anything close to that. Jurors are required to have a moral certainty that the death was caused by a criminal act in order to convict on murder, I only stated that at this point in the trial, if I were a juror, I don't think I could vote that way.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

You bolded there is very little unquestionable evidence in this case.
I believe you misunderstood my meaning in this statement. That statement means of all the circumstantial evidence and testimony presented so far at trial, there is very little of it that I have no reasonable doubts about.

I totally agree with everything in your post though.

I agree that one piece of the evidence is not going to be strong enough for a conviction, and by the same token, when one piece of the evidence is doubtful that is not enough doubt to acquit. However, when one has what they believe are reasonable doubts on well over half of the evidence and testimonies, well that is far more than a single piece of evidence, and the bottom line is, in my opinion the state has not proven its case.

I know that over 90% of the members of WS will be of a very different opinion and thats ok. For the sake of the majority, I do hope that no one who thinks and analyzes things in the way I do ends up on the jury, because if they do, there will be a hung jury. It looks as if 9 of every 10 people are certain of her guilt. 1 of 10 either thinks uncertain or not guilty and that is from polls on WS. It's a small sample, but probably a fair gauge of the general population. Things may change after the defense presents its case, and or after the prosecution does its rebuttal.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[MissJames]

This sounds horrible, but even having to explain a drowning would have screwed up her plans for that evening. As I said, hypothetically I think she would seen her death simply as an inconvenience that had to be handled so she could do what she wanted.

That's a :stretch: ,IMO,but if you're determined to find NG ,I guess anything becomes a possible explanation for what she did. JMO

 

[GeekyGirl]

That's a :stretch: ,IMO,but if you're determined to find NG ,I guess anything becomes a possible explanation for what she did. JMO

I'm really trying very, very hard not to be offended by that statement. I'm not "determined" to find NG, I'm giving my opinion on how I view the evidence presented.