Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

  • #41
I don't think they will have any problem reaching the level needed for conviction either.

The jury can get there one of two ways:

A piece of evidence presented that just cannot be explained away, this can be different pieces for different jury members. In this case I would expect it to be Casey's fingerprints embedded in the duct tape and fibers from her trunk embedded in the same tape.

Or they can get there by the totality of the evidence. Yes you can attack each individual piece, challenge the validity of a test, try to impeach each individual witness.... but the Prosecution has a lot of pieces for a REASONABLE juror to go back into that room and dismiss them all.

Not to mention there is no explanation that can be made that explains all of that evidence away by pointing to a nanny.

That being said I think the best reasonable doubt arguement they could create is that Cindy did this and Casey has had a mental breakdown since. I don't think they are going to go that route though.

impatient - once again we are synchronized swimmers. Circumstantial evidence is meant to be constructed and perceived as a totality and no realistic possibility exists of any other perpetrator given the circumstances here.

Frankly, even if CA had the opportunity or any kind of motive, I would think a big "red flag" (pun intended) pointing away from her would be the absence of cameras capturing how she called LE to respond to an accidental death of a child and they did not arrive in time and that she plans to sue. Neither do I belive she would have framed her daughter by putting the body in the trunk of that car and then telling the world what a wonderful mommy she was after admitting to a therapist she thought she might be a sociopath.
 
  • #42
I dont think there will be any doubt reasonable or otherwise that KC willfully intentionally and maliciously caused the death of that baby .

An accident and panic or a kidnapping isnt going to fly with the evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution .

The prisoners own words and deeds will seal her fate

She is guilty and will be found so by a jury of her peers .

From your lips to God's ears, I cannot think of a reasonable individual that could possibly hear all that we know compounded and concentrated into days or weeks (unlike us who had months to accept what we were hearing) and come up with any other conclusion. 31 days and Duct tape. Need anyone hear more?
 
  • #43
We need to remember SP..He was convicted and given the death penalty without a COD..They had the manner of death as being a homicide but no exact cause of death. I am not concerned. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence and I believe a very solid case against KC..COD is not going to be as important as the defense is trying hard to make us believe. That is how the game is played.
 
  • #44
We also need to remmeber everyone besides Scott P that has been let to walk on murder because there was no cause of death discernable. SP was an anomaly, not the standard.
 
  • #45
The State can prove that Caylee was unaccounted for during a period of 31 days before LE was notified. They will show how KC spent those days through the testimony of friends, family, photos, videos and the jury will see a woman who is not the least concerned about her child. The State will tell the jury about KC's lies and the wild goose chases she promoted beginning the night that CA called 911. The jury will see the jailhouse videos where she laughs and giggles and refuses to tell anyone anything except more ridiculous, complicated and convoluted lies. This evidence will have a great impact on the jury.

The State will show that KC had Caylee's body secreted in her trunk and apparently drove around for a few days with the baby's body rotting in a garbage bag as she partied it up with her new beau and his friends. They will see the Blockbuster video taken only hours after Caylee's death. The jury will have no problem deciding that KC knew the baby was dead in her trunk and that her dead baby didn't interfere with her enjoyment of life.

Then the State will show the site where Caylee was dumped which is a 3 minute walk at most from the A home. They will show that KC had no emotion whatsoever as searches were taking place all over Orlando but fell to her knees and needed a sedative when she learned of the search find in the swamp behind her neighborhood. The jig was up. The jury will catch on to that too.

IF there is no way to establish the COD, the jury will be tasked to determine if the State has proven that KC intentionally killed Caylee. For Baez to try the "someone else did it and KC was scared to tell", he must convince the jury that she is still so scared that she will not talk and would rather go to jail for life or even death row. Or he must try to convince the jury that it was an accident covered up by a panicked young mother. The problem here is that the body was in her car and any fear for her daughter's safety was moot and she has yet to describe the accident and her response to it. Neither of these scenarios establish "reasonable doubt".

It is not reasonable to believe in a phantom Nanny any more than it is reasonable to believe that Caylee committed suicide. It is not reasonable to to believe that it was an accident without any evidence of same from the mother's own mouth and she will never admit to anything.

The jury may have to deal with the fact that no one knows exactly how Caylee was killed, but there will be no doubt that the mother knew about it and went to elaborate means to keep the facts hidden from everyone. Jurors do not leave their logic and common sense at the courthouse steps and their combined years of living experiences will lead them to a murder 1 conviction.

It is KC's own fault. She could have claimed accidental death from DAY 1, but chose another route. Why? Because the evidence at the time showed that it was not an accident at all. She was just plain lucky that the body was not found until it was reduced to scattered bones and we do not reward those who manage to hide their crimes well and long enough to destroy evidence.

I have no wiggle room here, she will be found guilty of murder 1 and will get a LWOP or DP. She did it and will see the harsh reality of justice.

Good post, although respectfully I see a tiny bit of wiggle room here and there.

A couple additional points...

If I understand state statues correctly, if COD is not determined, but they can support that Caylee died as a result of agravated child abuse by KC-- then murder 1 is a possibility, even if defense can support "accidental" death.

Another intriquiging item I saw in the murder statutes in light of CA's medicine cabinet being searched--

782.04 Murder.--

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:


<snipped>

3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user, is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.

I checked and Xanax is on the schedule 4. I couldn't find Chloroform anywhere, but it may be a synthetic or natural salt of something else.
There may have been other drugs involved-- I remind you that CA is a nurse.
 
  • #46
I need to see what they have that connects KC to the crime scene. I have no doubt in my mind that she did it, but I'm waiting to see the evidence to give my opinion how someone fresh to this case may view it. JMO.
 
  • #47
Yes, she's the only one IMO. And am very interested to see what evidence they recently found as well as the trial. As for DP, I don't think so, but it may be even better life W/O parole IMO. However, she's always going to get her pork rinds, ya know?
 
  • #48
The simple truth is that the only people who lie, deny and dispose of a dead body are those who would be involved in the cause of death.
 
  • #49
We also need to remmeber everyone besides Scott P that has been let to walk on murder because there was no cause of death discernable. SP was an anomaly, not the standard.

But we really are exposed to only a tiny fraction of all murder trials taking place.


Who can say what is standard???:blowkiss:
 
  • #50
The simple truth is that the only people who lie, deny and dispose of a dead body are those who would be involved in the cause of death.


If that were true, there would be no crime of accessory after the fact, for murder --ever.

All would be co-conspirators, joint-venturers, etc and charged with murder.:blowkiss:
 
  • #51
Reasonable doubt.. hmm well, the key to that question is if you have two different interpretations of a situation, you must choose the one that goes to Not Guilty. You cannot just say I believe this or that. So much of the information we have is basically from the street, rumors etc. Science is going to make or break this case. If they can lock up all the science and give answers , no problem. If it is going to be based on things like her attitude or internet searches.. I really have to wonder what kind of verdict there will be in the end.
JMVHO


Thee are usually 2 different interpretations--
one from the proscecution/one from the defense.

Jurors can weigh the evidence as they choose unless told to disregard it.
 
  • #52
The State can prove that Caylee was unaccounted for during a period of 31 days before LE was notified. They will show how KC spent those days through the testimony of friends, family, photos, videos and the jury will see a woman who is not the least concerned about her child. The State will tell the jury about KC's lies and the wild goose chases she promoted beginning the night that CA called 911. The jury will see the jailhouse videos where she laughs and giggles and refuses to tell anyone anything except more ridiculous, complicated and convoluted lies. This evidence will have a great impact on the jury.

The State will show that KC had Caylee's body secreted in her trunk and apparently drove around for a few days with the baby's body rotting in a garbage bag as she partied it up with her new beau and his friends. They will see the Blockbuster video taken only hours after Caylee's death. The jury will have no problem deciding that KC knew the baby was dead in her trunk and that her dead baby didn't interfere with her enjoyment of life.

Then the State will show the site where Caylee was dumped which is a 3 minute walk at most from the A home. They will show that KC had no emotion whatsoever as searches were taking place all over Orlando but fell to her knees and needed a sedative when she learned of the search find in the swamp behind her neighborhood. The jig was up. The jury will catch on to that too.

IF there is no way to establish the COD, the jury will be tasked to determine if the State has proven that KC intentionally killed Caylee. For Baez to try the "someone else did it and KC was scared to tell", he must convince the jury that she is still so scared that she will not talk and would rather go to jail for life or even death row. Or he must try to convince the jury that it was an accident covered up by a panicked young mother. The problem here is that the body was in her car and any fear for her daughter's safety was moot and she has yet to describe the accident and her response to it. Neither of these scenarios establish "reasonable doubt".

It is not reasonable to believe in a phantom Nanny any more than it is reasonable to believe that Caylee committed suicide. It is not reasonable to to believe that it was an accident without any evidence of same from the mother's own mouth and she will never admit to anything.

The jury may have to deal with the fact that no one knows exactly how Caylee was killed, but there will be no doubt that the mother knew about it and went to elaborate means to keep the facts hidden from everyone. Jurors do not leave their logic and common sense at the courthouse steps and their combined years of living experiences will lead them to a murder 1 conviction.

It is KC's own fault. She could have claimed accidental death from DAY 1, but chose another route. Why? Because the evidence at the time showed that it was not an accident at all. She was just plain lucky that the body was not found until it was reduced to scattered bones and we do not reward those who manage to hide their crimes well and long enough to destroy evidence.

I have no wiggle room here, she will be found guilty of murder 1 and will get a LWOP or DP. She did it and will see the harsh reality of justice.
Wow! Wonderful post DotsEyes! And I so agree!
Yes she'll be found guilty of Murder1 and will receive LWOP or the DP. I think there's so much more evidence to come that will devastate the defense.
 
  • #53
There is no "Beyond a SHADOW of a Doubt."

"Beyond a REASONABLE Doubt" is a legal standard of proof. The Judges of the nation have defined it in case law. The standard has been put into judge's manuals for jury instructions. The jury instructions will be given to the jury.

Statements like "concrete proof" "beyond all doubt" "beyond a shadow of a doubt" "no evidence" "no solid evidence" are confusing and fuel unnecessary polarization of opinions. The question is, will the proof presented at trial convince a jury of 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. REASONABLE -- not any pie-in-the-sky theory.

Just my commentary for the day.


In Florida:
73
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following: It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996). A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence. If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.


This definition of reasonable double is from:


FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES...
Hope it clears up some questions...


jmho:)
 
  • #54
In Florida:
73
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following: It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996). A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence. If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.


This definition of reasonable double is from:


FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES...
Hope it clears up some questions...


jmho:)

Yes, TY. That cleared up some general questions for me, and some specific question I had about how juries are instructed. Appreciate that you posted the specifics for Florida.

One more question from section in red above: Are additional instructions given on wavering? For example, in some cases I might waver through-out different stages of a trial. I may even waver during jury deliberations, depending upon fellow jury member's discussion. At what point do you need to commit yourself fully - only at the point of voting?
 
  • #55
NOTE - thread appears to be corrupted. I sent an alert due to the way posts are going wacky.
 
  • #56
  • #57
  • #58
I understand reasonable doubt no problem. My concerns are what the charges are/will be and if the State has the goods to cover their burden.
It's not to say she isn't guilty of something..but what exactly will the evidence show she is guilty of?
As of now ,with the evidence we have seen, I don't know if they have enough to convict on murder 1 charges.
 
  • #59
NOTE - thread appears to be corrupted. I sent an alert due to the way posts are going wacky.
Howmany times have I told you? Don't drink and dial and don't drink and post. Just never works out.
 
  • #60
Howmany times have I told you? Don't drink and dial and don't drink and post. Just never works out.

:blowkiss: LOL :blowkiss:

I'm not, I swear! I gots Diet Pepsi! No vino...

I quoted MH, asked a question, posted it, and it stayed on page 2, even though there was already a link for page 3. And when I click linky for page 3, it went to top of page 2.

HONEST :D
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,519
Total visitors
2,632

Forum statistics

Threads
632,887
Messages
18,633,109
Members
243,330
Latest member
Gregoria Smith
Back
Top