Reasonable Doubt

[krimekat]

Please listen to all 3 911 tapes in their entirety. They tells the whole story. She concocted this story because her mom was putting her away and taking Caylee. She said right to her on the 1st call in the background if this is how its going to be, you will never see her again. Listen real close.

wow!!!

 

[krimekat]

Please listen to all 3 911 tapes in their entirety. They tells the whole story. She concocted this story because her mom was putting her away and taking Caylee. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...ale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

Cindy Anthony: My next thing will be child's thing and we'll have a court order to get her if thats what you wanna play. We'll do it and you'll never...

{Casey inaudibly talking}

Cindy Anthony: Well then you have...no I'm not giving you another day. I've given you a month.

 

[NighTillDawn]

Cindy Anthony: My next thing will be child's thing and we'll have a court order to get her if thats what you wanna play. We'll do it and you'll never...

{Casey inaudibly talking}

Cindy Anthony: Well then you have...no I'm not giving you another day. I've given you a month.

I heard all three 911 calls, and can't believe it. Amazing...nothing surprises me anymore

raying: for Caylee

Edited to add: In the 3rd 911 call Casey says the name of the nanny's, and spells it out for the operator. Her pronunciation is perfect and no mistakes in the spelling of the name either. Let's just say Casey sent Caylee with the nanny ZFG to Mexico. You don't need to fly to Mexico, you can drive there. Has the LE checked Mexico for Caylee?

 

[kgeaux]

Hi Kgeaux. I think it is either exculpatory or culpatory but nothing in between. I think the pendulum is going to swing to one end or the other on this.

Totally agree.....I'm just starting to get antsy about which direction that pendulum will swing.

I am holding on to the hope that LE is not going to release the findings until they need to. They aren't required to release their finding, I don't think.

They don't have to release the findings, but IF they had found ANYTHING at all, they'd be beefing up the charges against Casey, don't you think?

I know Dr. Baden said it could take a year to get results back, but I respectfully disagree with him.....in high profile cases, lab tests are rushed to the front of the line. I think it's "possible" that LE has the results, and the results were disappointing. I hope I am wrong.

 

[JBean]

Totally agree.....I'm just starting to get antsy about which direction that pendulum will swing.




They don't have to release the findings, but IF they had found ANYTHING at all, they'd be beefing up the charges against Casey, don't you think?

I know Dr. Baden said it could take a year to get results back, but I respectfully disagree with him.....in high profile cases, lab tests are rushed to the front of the line. I think it's "possible" that LE has the results, and the results were disappointing. I hope I am wrong.

While there are plenty of reasons that they could be withholding charges at this point, I am starting to think there is no case. What with all this media hoopla and drama surrounding her being bonded out it seem thye would have nipped it in the bud, cut it off, filed the muder charges and argued to hold her without bail. But they didn't.

Now, they have plenty of time to put a murder case together(if that is what they think happned) and perhaps they will only file the obstruction and lying to LE. If they dump the neglect charge they can always recharge her later or if they discover some murder evidence the door is open without having to worry about the argument for double jeopardy.

If she walks out of that jail this morning I will be doubtful that they have any substantial evidence. I do not think we have any idea if Caylee is dead or alive.

If they DO have the evidence to charge her and have the ability to hold her without bond, then letting this whole exercise with Padilla play out was irresponsible.

 

[websurfer]

I really do not look for her to say a single word about this.

Also I noticed she is close with her lawyer.
Who has forbidden her to talk about it to anybody...
so why is she out then?

 

[wallflower67]

I think there is enough to convict her of child neglect, which I believe carries a 5 year sentence. That would give the prosecution plenty of time to build a murder case, if that is what they have enough evidence to do.

 

[Chanler]

I think there is enough to convict her of child neglect, which I believe carries a 5 year sentence. That would give the prosecution plenty of time to build a murder case, if that is what they have enough evidence to do.

Good point. I think that the circumstantial links are numerous enough and suspicious enough to overcome reasonable doubt. It's true that Casey hasn't give police information to help locate Caylee, but it's entirely possible that her multiple lies would undermine any plausible legal alibi.

 

[MD MOMMY]

As this case stands right now, with the information we have until this point, what reasonable doubt do you think exists IF she was charged with murder? Remember it's not what we think LE might have or not have, it is the right here and now.

 

[AlishaGail]

I think that right now and perhaps forever, it would be impossible to get Casey on premeditated murder. Manslaughter and perhaps abuse of a corpse, depending on further evidence found, would be possible, but I don't think that premeditated murder would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Reasonable doubt that Casey did it or reasonable doubt that Caylee is dead.

Caylee is dead ZERO
Casey did it? Being that she was the last one to see the child and Zenida does not exisit, that would leave me with probability, that combined with the DNA evidence in her trunk would lead me to believe she commited the crime.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Reasonable doubt that Casey did it or reasonable doubt that Caylee is dead.

Caylee is dead ZERO
Casey did it? Being that she was the last one to see the child and Zenida does not exisit, that would leave me with probability, that combined with the DNA evidence in her trunk would lead me to believe she commited the crime.

That Casey did it..or both if people want to go there.:chicken:

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Jurors can't just have any or some doubt - it has to be reasonable.

-------------

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence.

These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true.

The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond%20a%20reasonable%20doubt

 

[Chilly Willy]

I need to hear the experts testify about the physical evidence - the hair and decomp. If the state's expert is as wishy washy as LE has been, saying it's "probably" Casey's hair and "probably" decomp material, etc. I MIGHT have doubt. However, when taken into consideration with Casey's actions before and after Caylee's disappearance, I think I'd have to vote guilty.

 

[Jolynna]

I think that right now and perhaps forever, it would be impossible to get Casey on premeditated murder. Manslaughter and perhaps abuse of a corpse, depending on further evidence found, would be possible, but I don't think that premeditated murder would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree.

An accident is possible. It IS possible that Casey could be in some sort of alternate reality from the shock of a horrible accident.

I am sure the defense can get put on a good case for how post trauma people can zone out to avoid thinking about horrific events. It is a fact that some abuse victims do it to survive.

I am convinced because Casey did not take the immunity deal that Caylee was deliberately killed.

But, I don't think that is even evidence I would be able to take into account if I were a juror.

 

[jbar]

If the state's expert is as wishy washy as LE has been, saying it's "probably" Casey's hair and "probably" decomp material, etc. I MIGHT have doubt.

In a TRIAL they will speak in absolutes. In an on-going investigation, where they are hoping for both a body, and a confession, they will not be speaking in absolutes, and that doesn't make them wishy washy.

I don't understand why "the public" doesn't seem to get that? They aren't going to sceam and point saying "SHE DID IT! SHE"S THE ONE!!!!" while they are still sorting it all out.

 

[Mysticj]

She is being charged with negligance, lying, and obstruction.. Of these, she is Guilty beyond reasonable boubt.

 

[Chilly Willy]

In a TRIAL they will speak in absolutes. In an on-going investigation, where they are hoping for both a body, and a confession, they will not be speaking in absolutes, and that doesn't make them wishy washy.

I don't understand why "the public" doesn't seem to get that? They aren't going to sceam and point saying "SHE DID IT! SHE"S THE ONE!!!!" while they are still sorting it all out.

You misunderstand. I realize that LE not ready to speak in absolutes. I'm saying that IF the test results turn out not to be conclusive when it comes to trial it might raise reasonable doubt in my eyes. At this point we really don't know.

 

[jbar]

If the tests aren't conclusive, I don't think we will see other charges. I think they are "not conclusive" now simply because not everything is back from the labs. Until everything is back it is not wise to speak in absolutes. JMO

Until detectives can get probable cause to determine if the child died and her body ended up in the trunk, sources close to the investigation told WESH 2 there won't be homicide-related charges filed.

http://www.wesh.com/news/17366272/detail.html

I think they are holding out for further testing AND/OR a confession and body, because they still need probable cause. Until everything is back - they won't be jumping the gun. JMO

Legal definition of probable cause - http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p089.htm

 

[AlishaGail]

In a TRIAL they will speak in absolutes. In an on-going investigation, where they are hoping for both a body, and a confession, they will not be speaking in absolutes, and that doesn't make them wishy washy.

I don't understand why "the public" doesn't seem to get that? They aren't going to sceam and point saying "SHE DID IT! SHE"S THE ONE!!!!" while they are still sorting it all out.

I don't think that that is what we expect. I think that what throws some of us off is that they HAVE said that it IS Caylee's DNA, and then changed their statements to say maybe/probably, and then back again to definitely. I agree that they're not going to give us everything during the investigative stages, but I do wish they'd stick to either disclaimers or the certainty.