PICK ME FOR THE JURY, PICK ME!!!!!:bananapartyhat:
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 -
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....
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....
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.
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.
Interesting. Do we know where she was? Anybody?
SHe also looked up sinkholes on her computer...
But, I started a thread on premeditation vs accident - check it out!
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70133
What? Sinkholes? I don't remember anything about that.
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