Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[rossva]

from their opening statements, yes

 

[marie-chantal]

"Just give me Tony's phone number". "All they care about is Caylee".
Nope, no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

I agree completely. I think that when Casey said that, she was most likely unaware that she was being taped. I think that statement (along with the "calling you guys...a waste") is the truest glimpse we've had of Casey since this happened. It clearly tells me her priorities and shows nothing more than a complete disregard for Caylee. When I add that to the 31 days, and the pictures and all the lies, then there is absolutely nothing that can convince me that she didn't murder Caylee.

 

[Nova]

BBM. I think this is where many people get hung up. They get reasonable doubt mixed up with "absolute certainty". Almost everyone I've seen who has said that the state's case is not convincing enough seem to be expecting "absolute certainty" or "beyond a a shadow of a doubt".

No, the problem is that people have differing ideas as to what is "reasonable."

I don't think belief in alien abductions is reasonable, in part because they are completely outside my experience. But there was a Harvard professor a few years back who felt there were enough similarities in abduction stories to conclude there was some truth to them.

As I said in another thread, a great police conspiracy seemed preposterous in West L.A. (first OJ trial), but not so unlikely in Central L.A. (which sees police scandals on a regular basis).

People who have or are wonderful mothers may have trouble believing KC put duct tape over her living child's nose and mouth. People who have or are abusive mothers may feel differently.

Etc. and so forth. But most of the time the deliberation process sorts a lot of this out, because jurors are forced to talk to others with different backgrounds and reasoning.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Mamabear I needed a good laugh..lol!

For me personally it goes like this:

1. ICA was the last person seen with Caylee alive and well.[/QUIOTE]

That doesn't prove premeditated murder.

2. Lets just say that CA is responsible for some of those searches-ICA is still responsible for incriminating nasty searches.

So, "neckbreaking" searches are incriminating how? Caylee's neck was not not broken. Seriouly. This one drives me crazy the most! I look up serial killers and all kinds of nasty things online.

3. 31 Days

Definitely disturbing but doesn't = murder necessarily.

4. 3 pieces of duct tape. 1,2,3....she took a moment between each piece of tape and imo that constitutes premeditation.

Even Dr. G said it was put on after death! So, it does NOT prove premeditation. Just because Dr. G said there is "no reason to put duct tape on a child after she dies" doesn't mean it's true. If Casey was trying to make it look like a kidnapping then that would be a logical reason to do so even if we all find that thought appalling.

5. She drove around with her dead daughter in the trunk of her car for 3 days before tossing her out like a bag of garbage in the woods without another thought other than TL.

The fact of a "dead body" still doesn't point to premeditated murder. Sorry, it just doesn't.

6. IMHO all those jail calls and visits are quite telling........

They tell that she is a liar. That's it.

 

[Nova]

If the "accused" goes free it is because the "state" did not prove it's case. A case should be decided in favor of the party who offers the most sound and compelling arguments based on the law as applied to the facts of the case.

The prosecutor has a duty to present evidence to prove that the accused is guilty of the crime charged. It is the prosecutor's duty to explain to the court what crime was committed and to present evidence to warrant a conviction.

The defense attorney has a duty to argue/present evidence to disprove the allegations.

At the end of the trial if a jury does not convict someone who is truly "guilty"...sadly, the prosecution did not do it's job.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The defense does NOT have a duty to disprove the allegations. If the prosecution doesn't meet its burden, it matters not whether the defense says anything at all.

In theory, the defense can sit and knit, and never say a word except "Your Honor, the defense rests." Not likely, of course.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Even Dr. G said it was put on after death! So, it does NOT prove premeditation. Just because Dr. G said there is "no reason to put duct tape on a child after she dies" doesn't mean it's true. If Casey was trying to make it look like a kidnapping then that would be a logical reason to do so even if we all find that thought appalling.

... Respectfully snipped by me.

In an effort to be balanced, I'll point out that IIRC Dr. G couldn't state conclusively whether the duct tape had been placed before Caylee's death or shortly after. only that it was placed before decomposition started.

Other than that, I agree with your post completely.

MOO

 

[gxm]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Mamabear I needed a good laugh..lol!

For me personally it goes like this:

1. ICA was the last person seen with Caylee alive and well.[/QUIOTE]

That doesn't prove premeditated murder.



So, "neckbreaking" searches are incriminating how? Caylee's neck was not not broken. Seriouly. This one drives me crazy the most! I look up serial killers and all kinds of nasty things online.



Definitely disturbing but doesn't = murder necessarily.



Even Dr. G said it was put on after death! So, it does NOT prove premeditation. Just because Dr. G said there is "no reason to put duct tape on a child after she dies" doesn't mean it's true. If Casey was trying to make it look like a kidnapping then that would be a logical reason to do so even if we all find that thought appalling.



The fact of a "dead body" still doesn't point to premeditated murder. Sorry, it just doesn't.



They tell that she is a liar. That's it.

re #1. The fact that Caylee was a very young child and was under ICA's "care" when she disappeared does point to foul play IMO. It's not the same as two adults who are seen together but then go their separate ways and one adult comes up missing. Adults can take care of themselves and it is not uncommon for an adult to be alone, whereas a toddler is always under adult supervision. ICA was the last adult seen with Caylee which makes her the one person who either killed her or knows who killed her. And, ICA's actions very strongly suggest that Caylee was not abducted and that ICA is, indeed, the killer.

re Dr. G's testimony. There is no good or wholesome reason to put duct tape over a child's mouth and nose. Sure, there are "reasons" but those reasons range from abusive to downright evil. As ICA is the last adult to have been with Caylee, it is IMO clear that she is the person who applied the duct tape. Whether it was before or after Caylee died is, IMO, neither here nor there.

And then there's the body in the trunk. People don't usually conceal a dead body in a trunk unless they are up to no good. It is not normal, or reasonable, behavior to drive around with a child's decomposing body in the trunk of one's car: It is the action of a cold and calculating killer. MOO IMO JMO etc.

 

[Bon]

I'm not biased.. I want there to be proof that Casey and Casey alone murdered Caylee. I think she did kill Caylee I'm just not seeing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of it.

Then who do you think killed Caylee??? She was in Casey's care only for 31 days......

 

[Bon]

I believe ICA killed Caylee...but I am still on the fence in determining if it was premeditated.

Premeditated....duct tape

 

[katydid23]

Re #1. The fact that Caylee was a very young child and was under ICA's "care" when she disappeared does point to foul play IMO. It's not the same as two adults who are seen together but then go their separate ways and one adult comes up missing. Adults can take care of themselves and it is not uncommon for an adult to be alone, whereas a toddler is always under adult supervision. ICA was the last adult seen with Caylee which makes her the one person who either killed her or knows who killed her. And, ICA's actions very strongly suggest that Caylee was not abducted and that ICA is, indeed, the killerr.

re Dr. G's testimony. There is no good or wholesome reason to put duct tape over a child's mouth and nose. Sure, there are "reasons" but those reasons range from abusive to downright evil. As ICA is the last adult to have been with Caylee, it is IMO clear that she is the person who applied the duct tape. Whether it was before or after Caylee died is, IMO, neither here nor there.

And then there's the body in the trunk. People don't usually conceal a dead body in a trunk unless they are up to no good. It is not normal, or reasonable, behavior to drive around with a child's decomposing body in the trunk of one's car: It is the action of a cold and calculating killer. MOO IMO JMO etc.

THIS IS HUGE, imo. As you say, it is not just that she was the last person to see the child, but she was the person in custody of and solely caring for, said child. She cannot just go waltzing off to Blockbuster oblivious to her child's whereabouts.

And she has not fully answered the questions concerning the child's supposed 'drowning.' It is not enough to say it happened ' in the early morning, no late afternoon, no morning, but will never be known for sure,' THAT IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO BE BELIEVABLE.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

re Dr. G's testimony. There is no good or wholesome reason to put duct tape over a child's mouth and nose.

There is no good reason according to HER, but she is not a behavioral scientist.

Again, I am not a fan of first degree murder when there is no hard evidence. I don't agree with the Scott Peterson verdict either for what it's worth.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I'm thinking, right now, that this makes more sense: Has the defense created "Rational" Doubt?

 

[GeekyGirl]

There is no good reason according to HER, but she is not a behavioral scientist.

Again, I am not a fan of first degree murder when there is no hard evidence. I don't agree with the Scott Peterson verdict either for what it's worth.

I would actually agree that there aren't any good or wholesome reasons to put duct tape on a child's face, and that is a powerfully emotional statement. However, it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is was it applied before or after Caylee died. The emotional argument is strong, the factual one, not so much. MOO

 

[katydid23]

The only time that the answer to this question matters is AFTER the rebuttal and the closing statements. imoo

 

[GeekyGirl]

I'm thinking, right now, that this makes more sense: Has the defense created "Rational" Doubt?

Again, you run into subjective differences over what is rational. For instance, I think it's perfectly rational to have 15 pairs of black shoes, my boyfriend thinks I'm nuts. (Obviously that's a much more trivial example, but you get my point)

 

[Linda7NJ]

Jose said "follow the duct tape" I have been. I don't doubt that either George or Cindy bought it...because they bought & paid for EVERYTHING. So it was in the home....and on Caylee's face.

 

[curiositycat]

The fact that the jury was picked from folks who said they knew nothing about the trial might help them in creating reasonable doubt. However, I remember seeing an interview in which Greta Van Susteren asked Cindy about the drowning theory and Cindy explicitly said it never happened. She stated, iirc, that she "always" put the ladder away.
The most damning fact for the defense, IMHO, is the testimony from her friends and the pictures of her partying in the blue dress. EVEN IF the drowning theory was true, how could she do that?
The defense has made allegations of sexual abuse, without a shred of evidence to prove it. Without them proving that, the jury might just think like everything else from ICA it is a lie.
If I was a juror, I would be so confused by the defense teams unorganized case that I wouldn't know what to think. I would however, remember those pictures of her partying and think, "Who does that?"

I am thinking the answer to the question to be "no." There is not enough proof for reasonable doubt.
JMHO

 

[beeshie]

The one I'm worried about is the African American lady who doesn't like to judge people. Hopefully she's not one of the final 12.

I'm not worried about this juror in the least bit. We all judge people...every day. Some people may just not like to admit it.

However, if the jury comes back with a conviction, this juror will definitely not vote for the death penalty. But I'm ok with that.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Sigh. I have to admit I am frustrated by people's insistence that 1st degree (premeditated) murder has been proven by the state. It really really hasn't, IMO. There are mixed testimonies about "how much" chloroform was in the trunk and "where" it came from. There is no proof that Casey used it on Caylee and no items were found that indicate she concocted the chemical recipes found online.

Frankly, there are many cases of a prosecution building "evidence" based on a speculation of a murder scenario. This disturbs me because it already means there is a bias in reading and looking for evidence.

There is NO cause of death. And the State has not shown MOTIVE for premeditated murder.

Chloroform searches don't proof murder. They just don't! And god help us all if they do. And there is conflicting evidence about what that "searched 84 times" actually refers to.

The duct tape is disturbing but if it was accidental and happened within a family that is this high strung, secretive and dysfunctional I can see making a case for Casey wanting to make an accidental death look like a kidnapping--and it's reasonable when you consider the fabrication she created around the "nanny." It is a reasonable proposition based on the Anthony's family dynamics. It doesn't mean it's true either, but it could be just as true based on all the evidence. It could be murder but it could also be an accident gone wrong. I don't know which it is based on the evidence.

Going with your speculation that it could have been an accident - Do you have any thoughts as to why the Defense would keep an accident a secret for 3 years, leaving Casey in jail for 3 years?

I hear what you are saying and respect your opinion and I am not going to try to make you think the way I do. After 3 years of reading the released evidence, including watching how the Defense has pointed their finger at numerous different people as the "real person" that killed Caylee - I believe it is 1st degree (premeditated) Murder. And a side note: I am against the Death Penalty...but that doesn't change nor influence my opinion.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Again, you run into subjective differences over what is rational. For instance, I think it's perfectly rational to have 15 pairs of black shoes, my boyfriend thinks I'm nuts. (Obviously that's a much more trivial example, but you get my point)

oh you are such a nice person (I mean that) I know that from your response to my post. I, on the other hand, was being somewhat sarcastic....now I feel bad