Hi, I'm new here. Please be gentle! I'm not sure if anyone's interested in my opinion, but I think I knew as much as the jury before this case, perhaps even less. I remember hearing about it in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.
Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death . . . but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but, like others have said, I don't know if I could classify something as a "criminal act" without the prosecution showing both of those things. In other words, I still have reasonable doubt that this wasn't some sort of accident that Casey--crazy person that she is--covered up to look like a kidnapping-murder. I know that sounds insane, but I also believe Casey isn't all there, so I really could see her doing something like this.
My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away. For example, I thought Dr. Vass was very credible and I don't think his testimony was "junk science"--it's just new science--but I
also don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform. I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if
any are
not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported! Finally, I think the computer searches look bad, but they were months before Caylee died and I think it's possible Casey started searching for chloroform after seeing that myspace thing, and then followed related links. (If anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.)
I know all of this probably sounds like quibbling, but absent any history of abuse, any motive, and any really solid evidence of premeditation, I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up. Then again, I don't know; my opinion of her first-degree murder guilt actually wavers daily. All of this stuff added up certainly doesn't look good. I think, if nothing else, she's definitely guilty of manslaughter; I just can't say that I would definitely vote for first degree if the trial ended now.
For what it's worth, I really don't think she should get the death penalty even if found guilty of first-degree. But this is just totally based on my own personal belief: I, personally, could only recommend the DP if two conditions are met: If there's a veritable "smoking gun"--in other words, if the case is proved not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a
shadow of a doubt; and if the person presents a clear danger to society. I don't, personally, feel either has been proved in this case, IMO.
All that said, I don't buy the defense's story, either. It's simply too ridiculous to believe. And the jury probably won't believe it, so she probably will be found guilty of first-degree murder.
Finally, there's a lot of talk about what "reasonable doubt" means, and I think GeekyGirl is right: it seems really subjective. What I find reasonable, others may not. WESH.com's Ask the Judge column says that the Florida jury instructions include this:
Ask the Judge
So, yeah, apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable. Like I said, my opinion wavers and vacillates with every day!
ETA: Reading some of threads more closely, I think I'm almost in total agreement with
GeekyGirl. I probably could have been less long-winded and just said that!