Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

  • #61
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.


Very well done. :clap:

I'm not a resident of Florida, so I won't be called for jury duty on this case, therefore I'm not obliged to withhold my judgment until all the facts are disclosed. I'm sure my first instinct were correct and I haven't strayed from it once over the past five months.

1) Caylee not reported missing for 31 days
2) Car smelled like death and forensic evidence points to a decomposing body
3) Non-existent nanny
4) Web of lies
5) Casey having the time of her life while Caylee was "kidnapped"
6) Casey's lack of fear, grief, worry
7) Body found near the family home after Casey repeatedly said, "She's close".

There's so much more, but those are the main points. The most important main point for me, and what made me say immediately, "She killed her child", was NOT REPORTED FOR 31 DAYS, and it was finally reported by CINDY not Casey.

I'd hand over my GUILTY verdict the minute I sat down in the jury box on the first day of trial. Why bother to go through the motions unless it's to hear the total of LE's, FBI's, ME's findings? The findings are what I'm interested in, not Baez's spin.

GUILTY!!!!!!
 
  • #62
But we really are exposed to only a tiny fraction of all murder trials taking place.


Who can say what is standard???:blowkiss:

In the experience that I have had with following many murder trials, SP is not the norm. There are a good deal of convictions with out a body, but for some reason, once a body is found, if there is no clear cut cause of death, it seems to backfire for the prosecution. I have no idea why that is, but it seems that there are more walking on no cause of death than there are walking on no body.
 
  • #63
it's all been said so i'll be brief:
any doubt which i may ever entertain regarding the guilt of casey anthony in the killing of her daughter, with malice aforethought, is not reasonable.
there is always the possibility that casey anthony is innocent, but only to the same degree that there is always the possibility that Scott peterson is innocent .... and ian brady and ted bundy and john wayne gacy and richard ramirez and edmund kemper and ....
 
  • #64
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


I think the verdict will be based on the forensic evidence along with the fact that Caylee's missing wasn't reported until she had been missing for 31 days and then it was Cindy that reported Caylee missing...not Casey. I think the computer stuff will come into the decision...the fact that there is no Zanny the Nanny...Casey's behavior after Caylee was missing=partys and all of the men=her behavior...all of the lies to LE and the FBI, etc, etc. I think Casey has looped the rope and hung herself without the help of any one else.

Even though jurors aren't supposed to think with their emotions I can't see that not happening plus they will use good ole common sense which they are advised to do by the attorneys and judge. They will find her guilty of first degree murder. No one else had a motive for wanting to get rid of this baby.
 
  • #65
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.
----------------
Dots Eyes,I agree 100%..One thing I'd like to mention is I think Baez has her convinced she has a stong chance of getting off! She will not say one word ~ well maybe an exception~screaming at the verdict!! Lets all pray!! LOL.
 
  • #66
No doubt.
 
  • #67
"I think the verdict will be based on...the fact that there is no Zanny the Nanny."

Okay, but what if there is a Zanny the Nanny?

When Zani got in a car wreck and was taken to the hospital, Casey was riding with a friend in the car behind her.

Remember, Casey hasn't presented any of her defense yet.

That car wreck generated hard records of Zani's existence, though LE strongly insisted Zani doesn't exist. But now, since there are records somewhere, LE has to come up with a Zani. So a Zani magically appears at the address where Casey says Zani lived.

That can be used to explain the Zani in the hard records. They had to come up with a Zani to cover that detail. But what if Casey's friends say, "No, that isn't Zani. I saw Zani with Casey on this date, and in this place..." And many of her friends testify to seeing Casey's Zani.

The prosecution could just say, "Okay, Casey's Zani does exist, but that doesn't prove anything.

Except now, LE has to explain why a Zani who isn't that Zani lives where Casey said she lived.

Ultimately, the weirdness factor is going to play the largest role in this story. Like, when Caylee's body appeared on top of the ground right in the neighborhood after six months of exhaustive searching.
 
  • #68
It all depends on the jury and the court location. Many people confuse reasonable doubt with beyond the shadow of a doubt

However, with this case, it is the State's case to lose...I don't see that happening.
 
  • #69
I have to admit that due to the physical evidence I know of so far, I cannot eliminate the possibility of an accident ....


....then I remember the video at blockbuster, etc. She had no concern at all through those 31 days. had she been acting scared,sad, anxious etc it would be a different story. She is not scared of her mother, we all have seen how she plays cindy.

But all this to cover an accident makes no rational sense whatsoever. so circumstantionally (not a word I am sure) speaking it sure looks dirty.
 
  • #70
Regardless of how I feel or what I believe, not reporting you child missing for 31 days does not prove you killed her. I have not seen enough proof that shows me they have a solid case, I hope they have more that I have seen but so far, most of what we have is just what we think. Even the police wouldn't stand behind the car with a strong position of she was here, she was dead. I do believe personally that Casey got mad and reacted to that anger with Caylee being the target, but I'm not sure that has been proven beyond doubt. As for GA and CA, we have not walked in their shoes, and I hope that I never do. I can not help but think that I would also want to believe my child. On the other hand, I would have been looking for her during those 31 days myself. of course JMO
 
  • #71
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.

Actually you're missing a very important word here and that word is 'REASONABLE.' Not just 2 different interpretations but if you have 2 that are equally reasonable then you need to give the benefit to the 'not guilty' one.

However, is it 'reasonable' to conclude that a "nanny" that doesn't actually exist took Caylee and that Casey was "following a script for 30 days" which included partying and not telling anyone VERSUS a scenario that shows Caylee was dead/decomposing was in the trunk of a car her mother was driving around, dumped near the house?

Just because someone presents 2 scenarios doesn't mean a jury has to give them equal weight. In this example one is reasonable and the other is pure fantasy with no evidence to support it.
 
  • #72
:clap::clap::clap:

What DotsEyes said!! Thank you!

Post #22
 
  • #73
  • #74
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?

You are welcome.:blowkiss:

Not sure if I should have though. Will wait for guidance. :wink:
 
  • #75
Actually you're missing a very important word here and that word is 'REASONABLE.' Not just 2 different interpretations but if you have 2 that are equally reasonable then you need to give the benefit to the 'not guilty' one.

However, is it 'reasonable' to conclude that a "nanny" that doesn't actually exist took Caylee and that Casey was "following a script for 30 days" which included partying and not telling anyone VERSUS a scenario that shows Caylee was dead/decomposing was in the trunk of a car her mother was driving around, dumped near the house?

Just because someone presents 2 scenarios doesn't mean a jury has to give them equal weight. In this example one is reasonable and the other is pure fantasy with no evidence to support it
.


Oh I agree SleuthyGal, 100%!!!

And I would even add to that :dj: yaketty yak,

That the jury is also instructed not in these words of course,

that they can pick and choose pieces of the 2 interpretations and assign them great weight or no weight so as to basically string together their own interpretation, or 3rd interpretation of the way things went, and what are the facts.
I really hope this makes sense. :coffee:
 
  • #76
It all depends on the jury and the court location. Many people confuse reasonable doubt with beyond the shadow of a doubt

However, with this case, it is the State's case to lose...I don't see that happening.


The definition of
"reasonable doubt" will be given as many times as is necessary to insure that all jurors have a clear understanding.

If they get confused while deliberating, about what it means, it is not unusual for them to ask to come back in to hear the definition of "reasonable doubt" again. They can hear it till they get it. (in their own minds--no quiz:D)

I really don't understand what the Court location has to do with confusion about the meaning of reasonable doubt. I hope someone can explain. :coofee::coffee:

I left my above smilie typo cuz it says it all.:rolleyes:
 
  • #77
I absolutely believe that they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I do have concern though, over whether they can prove intentional murder (which is what I believe) vs a cover-up of an accidental death.

I agree, except for the intentional murder part.

Either way, she'll be going to jail for a long time.
 
  • #78
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?


Jurors are given instructions on how to evaluate the evidence they have heard.
They are instructed to use their common sense, along with numerous other instructions on weighing evidence.

Committing oneself really just counts at the vote. Who can know how many times deliberating jurors swing back and forth in their opinions on guilty or not, during the unfolding trial and during the deliberations.

The system is fashioned to handle that wavering.

I do love the idea of a wavering instruction though. The closest thing to it would probably be the "give it one more shot" instruction given to a hung jury, if I understand the question. :blowkiss:
 
  • #79
Actually you're missing a very important word here and that word is 'REASONABLE.' Not just 2 different interpretations but if you have 2 that are equally reasonable then you need to give the benefit to the 'not guilty' one.

However, is it 'reasonable' to conclude that a "nanny" that doesn't actually exist took Caylee and that Casey was "following a script for 30 days" which included partying and not telling anyone VERSUS a scenario that shows Caylee was dead/decomposing was in the trunk of a car her mother was driving around, dumped near the house?

Just because someone presents 2 scenarios doesn't mean a jury has to give them equal weight. In this example one is reasonable and the other is pure fantasy with no evidence to support it.

Do we really know that is going to be the defense case? We only know what we have read in the press, what LE has reported. Some of these things may never make it before a jury. Guess we will have to wait and see. It could be a few years before they even have a trial. Telling tall tales is not enough. The science is what will prove this case. I am convinced of that much. Not all the gossip or behavior of Casey.
 
  • #80
In the experience that I have had with following many murder trials, SP is not the norm. There are a good deal of convictions with out a body, but for some reason, once a body is found, if there is no clear cut cause of death, it seems to backfire for the prosecution. I have no idea why that is, but it seems that there are more walking on no cause of death than there are walking on no body.


Oh gosh, I don't doubt you at all.

I am mixing up your observation with the big picture.:blowkiss:
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
2,523
Total visitors
2,634

Forum statistics

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