Reasonable Doubt

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's my opinion that if LE can prove that Caylee is dead & they can also prove that she was in Casey's trunk then Casey will be convicted of 1st degree murder. They don't need a body.
 
PICK ME FOR THE JURY, PICK ME!!!!!:bananapartyhat:
 
Need and want are two different things.

LE always will WANT a body - that makes it fairly easy for them.

However, I don't think they will drag this out to the last second in the hopes that one will turn up. I think they will drag it out till they have reasonably searched to the best of everyone's ability and then they will use what they have and charge. JMO
 
And were she to get the death penalty, I can just see the "executioner" saying to Casey right before she is executed, "everyone lies, everyone dies".
 
If Cassey were to ever claim that this was an accidental death then she would have to tell LE where the body is.

If this goes to trial and there is evidence that Caylee is dead & her body was disposed of by Casey then the only reasonable assumption would be that Casey murdered her.

The reason being that if this was an accident she would have told LE where the body is & the autopsy would confirm her story.
 
I'm betting the state and LE have a pretty good idea now what's fact and what's fiction in this case. If they can discredit (impeach) the testimony of any of the key witnesses for the defense it could be devastating.
 
If most of the public doesn't buy the Zanny the Nanny story I can guarantee you 12 jurors will have a hard time doing so as well.
 
Listen to this audio of an independent caller to LP. In this conversation, he asks her if she sees any holes in the timeline. After you have listened, look at this calendar a fellow WS'er put together and see if you see any holes.

http://www.myspace.com/caseyanthonyneedsprison4life

Here is the calendar -

STEADFAST said:
1220261950.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Casey did it? Being that she was the last one to see the child....
(respectfully snipped from NJ comment above... sorry - not sure how to do quotes on here yet :)
See, regardless, this is actually the ONE thing keeping me on the fence abt this entire madness.... technically, yes - & this being per CA herself, yes, CA is the last one to see the child (seeing as how LE has shown that basically the nanny ZFG doesn't *exist*(?) But what is proveable 'evidence', well - I mean, anyone can 'he-said-she-said-I-saw-them-here-or-there') - but what is provable 'fact' as far as jury-wise, IMO, is that the GM was last to see child (per the video & pics at senior home, per sign in sheet at senior home, per witness at senior home, & per CA's own mother) CA wasn't with her as far as all these records appear to indicate. So, again..... back to square one... basically, I think it ALL boils down to *when* did this little angel *actually* disappear....? CA says 6/09. GM says 6/16. Initially EVERYONE said 6/09..... I don't think it's as clear-cut of a whodunnit until the exact determination of when she was REALLY last seen comes to light.... this is jmo....
 
Baznme said:
Listen to this audio of an independent caller to LP. In this conversation, he asks her if she sees any holes in the timeline. After you have listened, look at this calendar a fellow WS'er put together and see if you see any holes.

Here is the calendar -
Click to expand...

Not a hole per se but her myspace quotes show her to be at Fusian all of the fridays except the one where Tony is gone.
 
TheLoneRanger said:
Casey did it? Being that she was the last one to see the child....
(respectfully snipped from NJ comment above... sorry - not sure how to do quotes on here yet :)
See, regardless, this is actually the ONE thing keeping me on the fence abt this entire madness.... technically, yes - & this being per CA herself, yes, CA is the last one to see the child (seeing as how LE has shown that basically the nanny ZFG doesn't *exist*(?) But what is proveable 'evidence', well - I mean, anyone can 'he-said-she-said-I-saw-them-here-or-there') - but what is provable 'fact' as far as jury-wise, IMO, is that the GM was last to see child (per the video & pics at senior home, per sign in sheet at senior home, per witness at senior home, & per CA's own mother) CA wasn't with her as far as all these records appear to indicate. So, again..... back to square one... basically, I think it ALL boils down to *when* did this little angel *actually* disappear....? CA says 6/09. GM says 6/16. Initially EVERYONE said 6/09..... I don't think it's as clear-cut of a whodunnit until the exact determination of when she was REALLY last seen comes to light.... this is jmo....
Click to expand...

I think the George sighting is the last time she was seen. If they had gone out that afternoon someone would recall seeing Caylee, or they would be on video somewhere. I think it happened at the house shortly after George left.
 
TheLoneRanger said:
Casey did it? Being that she was the last one to see the child....
(respectfully snipped from NJ comment above... sorry - not sure how to do quotes on here yet :)
See, regardless, this is actually the ONE thing keeping me on the fence abt this entire madness.... technically, yes - & this being per CA herself, yes, CA is the last one to see the child (seeing as how LE has shown that basically the nanny ZFG doesn't *exist*(?) But what is proveable 'evidence', well - I mean, anyone can 'he-said-she-said-I-saw-them-here-or-there') - but what is provable 'fact' as far as jury-wise, IMO, is that the GM was last to see child (per the video & pics at senior home, per sign in sheet at senior home, per witness at senior home, & per CA's own mother) CA wasn't with her as far as all these records appear to indicate. So, again..... back to square one... basically, I think it ALL boils down to *when* did this little angel *actually* disappear....? CA says 6/09. GM says 6/16. Initially EVERYONE said 6/09..... I don't think it's as clear-cut of a whodunnit until the exact determination of when she was REALLY last seen comes to light.... this is jmo....
Click to expand...


Soooo, sometime between 6/16 (date Caylee last seen) and 6/27 (date the car was dropped off at Amscot), Caylee disappeared. We still do not know when she passed away. Surely, Casey wasn't driving around with Caylee in the trunk for 14 days.
 
Baznme said:
Soooo, sometime between 6/16 (date Caylee last seen) and 6/27 (date the car was dropped off at Amscot), Caylee disappeared. We still do not know when she passed away. Surely, Casey wasn't driving around with Caylee in the trunk for 14 days.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that maybe her car was noticed at the Amscot on the 27th however, it is also possible they didn't notice it until that day. I don't know just throwing it out there.

I wonder IF she was actually pushed by a couple of guys into the parking lot. Someone would def. remember helping her and would have contacted LE. Did Casey ever admit to the date that her car ran out of gas? Just curious I don't remember reading that.

I would only imagine that the day that she abandoned the car would be the day she got rid of the body. I just can't imagine that she would drive around in a stinky car for several days.
 
DAWN TREADER said:
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.

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
Click to expand...

Snipped..

Yes I'm aware that is why the post is called Reasonable doubt LOL.
 
A funny analogy to answer the question: there is one brownie left in my kitchen. Hubby gets home and finds that I was the last one in possession of said brownie, my breath smeels like brownie, and I have brownie crumbs on my face. Oh no, our daughter ate it, I say. (We don't have a daughter, he points out.) I mean, I've given it to someone to hold. (Who has it?) I can't tell you, or they might eat it. (I could go on....)

Ridiculous? Yes, but you get my drift. Hubby knows I ate the stinking brownie beyond a reasonable doubt. IMO, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her beautiful little girl.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 119 more.
Total: 3,089 (members: 120, guests: 2,969)

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,969
Total visitors
3,089
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,085
Messages
18,167,281
Members
231,928
Latest member
lookingforheatherarcher
Back
Top