Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Who_What_When]

Snipped...

I think this is my issue with people who are arguing that it was an accident and therefor not the same as murder.

IMHO accidents can be murder. But the courts don't always see it that way. Like killing someone by Drunk Driving ought to be a murder charge to me but it isn't.

That's the whole point. It's not about what you think or feel should happen it's about the law. That's what GeekyGirl and I have been trying to say. It's not that we don't believe that she is responsible for Caylee's death, it's that WITHOUT knowing how she died it's almost impossible to convict her of 1st degree murder. It's not that we have to know exactly how she died, but there has to be proof BARD that a MURDER not a HOMICIDE was committed.

 

[Cailin Rua]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crucibelle View Post
Agreed. She was too lazy to plan for a spot to dispose of the body, and she was too lazy to go through the methodical process of creating chloroform, IMO. I don't think chloroform had anything to do with the death of Caylee. JMO!!!

For a long time, I felt she dumped Caylee close to home because she is lazy. Perhaps that is in part true, but it also seems to fit with convenience, of course, but most convincing to me is that it seems common for women who kill their children and dispose of them to keep them close by. I believe that goes toward the threads about murderers who revisit the scene of the crime. Either out of sick fascination or a need to grieve in her own way, I feel Casey purposely placed her there. Not to mention, that often the most obvious is the most overlooked. The "in plain sight" argument, if you will.

The theory that makes sense to me is that she was trying to think of a good place to dump the body, maybe she was going to steal gas and drive somewhere, and then the incident occurred where George came home unexpectedly and nearly looked in the trunk and that frightened her badly. So she drove away quickly and found a likely looking swampy area and concealed the bag as best she could. Maybe she thought she could come back and do a better job at some point.

 

[Who_What_When]

I Apologize. I was not really talking about you. I will go edit my post. That did not come out the way I meant.

====================================


WHY didn't she call for an EMT to try and save her child?
Because she didn't want to be held responsible.

SO SHE WOULD RATHER ESCAPE ANY POTENTIAL BLAME THAN TRY AND REVIVE THE BABY?
I think that is pretty damning evidence in itself that she deserves some punishment.


Wouldnt they have screamed and made a ruckus if they found Caylee in the pool? Did they instantly decide to be quiet and cover it up?
Maybe she did, no one was home so who can say if she screamed or not? Also, who said she died in a pool? She could have been left in a hot car.

BUT THE HOUSES ARE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER. If she screamed the way one would if they found their child dead, then I believe she would have been heard.
I am talking about a pool, because that is what CASEY SAID HAPPENED. Are you expecting the jury to decide that Casey and the state are both wrong? I would not be expecting the jury to deliberate on an accident that has not even been testified to in trial.
I think it is reasonable to assume that the jury has to choose one of the two theories offered.
And anyway, if it was a hot car, why would she say it was a drowning? Why not tell the truth if it was an accident anyway?

There are at least 2 houses with a clear view into the Ant's backyard.
Again, I never said she died in the pool.

I am just saying that if the jury is going to decide it was an 'accident' then they pretty much have to deliberate the story the defendant has given. imoo


Why would some one cover up an accidental death by making it look like a MURDER? Because she didn't want to be held responsible and lying and covering up seems to be what Casey does best.

But covering up a small thing, with a bigger thing, that brings the Death Penalty makes no sense at all.

First, I don't buy what the defense is saying and NEVER thought that George had anything to do with this. I feel that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death and that she is soley responsible. With that said, all your questions indicate that the Defense has to prove their case, they don't. They only have to create a reasonable doubt.

The State has to prove their case BARD. Did they? I'm not sure. I believe they did on Aggravated Manslaughter but without knowing what was the cause of death or having any proof that a murder was committed, not a homicide, I think it will be difficult to convict her of 1st degree murder. Now if all the jurors believe that duct tape or chloroform was used to kill Caylee then she will be found guilty of first degree, I just don't know if I believe BARD that these items were used.

I'm hoping that in the closing argument that the state will be able to bring it all together and if they do then yes I would be able to convict her of first degree but without that I would only be able to convict her of aggravated manslaughter.

 

[Chewy]

I think the state should address all of the "well maybe it was just an accident" ideas and tear those ideas apart in the closing argument.


Sort of say "ok what if, what if, what if........." 31 days. 31 days

 

[aeneas1]

even if one ignores the 31 days of partying, the smell of decomposition in the trunk, chloroform traces, death bands, dog hits and the seemingly incriminating web searches, the jury is still left with:

1. a 911 recording of a frantic grandmother calling to report that her grandchild has been missing for over a month, in which an indignant casey can be heard saying that she didn't want to speak with the 911 operator.

2. transcripts of a seemingly indifferent mother, casey, lying to law enforcement about about everything under the sun, including where she had left her child and with whom she had left her child, while intentionally obstructing the investigation at every opportunity.

3. jail house recordings of casey reiterating her lies, expounding even, while showing much more concern for her own predicament than for the well-being of her child.

4. caylee's body eventually found, stuffed in trash bags, bound in duct tape and dumped in the woods.

does an accident scenario reasonably explain any of this? not in my opinion. regardless of the amount of lipstick you put on it. and the jury won't think so either imo.

 

[Cailin Rua]

She places herself on the scene when the child died, it's blatantly obvious both that she did transport and dispose of the body and that she doesn't want to admit to it, and the story her lawyer tells about how she didn't really do anything wrong is absolutely fantastic. Then there are the chloroform searches and the chloroform in the car...we may not know exactly what transpired there but it certainly indicates some sort of premeditation.

The duct tape did not float around the swamp and then wrap itself tightly around the skull and hold the mandible in place. If it was floating it would have been sort of wadded up and stuck to one part of the skull, not wrapped tightly around it.

And then 31 days of hiding and lying and generally indicating consciousness of guilt.

 

[Chewy]

The thing that seems weird to me is that people seem to think that if we can't prove 100 percent how she did it, then we must acquit. That's the kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off.


I mean COME ON, ok we don't NEED to know exactly HOW she did it to know that she did it. Just like Scott Peterson.

It's almost as if people are so caught up in the details that they are missing the forest for the trees.

Think of the situation as "innocently" as you possibly can..........

Poor girl screws up and over doses her kid. She tries to cover it up by pretending she's been kidnapped. So she spins this story that Zanny has her and wants it to go on for a bit to put distance between herself and her daughter and maybe have the cops thinking Zanny took her and went to Mexico.

Heck maybe she even was influenced by the Madelaine McCain story and thought she'd be seen as a victim in all of this.

So she lets it go and go and go.


Ok maybe I could believe that. Maybe I could also believe that in her stupid state she thought she'd be treated like the McCains and become famous and get lots of money. I mean did she do anything different than they might have done? Drugged her child and went out and then the child is missing?

So all of this seems to maaaaybe make sense. Until you get to the point that she didn't report her missing for 31 days and that she was out having a good time.

Even if you want to say that she was in a sense of detachment, or that she was in denial, whatever you want to say, it is not humanly possible for someone who loves their child to have gone 31 days without losing it and snapping at some point. At some point when confronted she would have broken down. And it is three years later and she still hasn't.

So that in and of itself speaks volumes.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Not if she was knocked out. I've posted this quite a bit and it doesn't seem to be noticed.

Any of you parents out there? The PITA for me when dealing with a toddler was getting them to fall asleep. Once they WERE asleep they usually stayed asleep.

So I can see Casey using chloroform to just knock out Caylee. She didn't need to use it to "keep her out" just to knock her out. Drugging her kid would be traceable so she just knocked her out with gas.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to ignore that fact, it's just that I don't think they've presented enough evidence to say that chloroform was in fact used. Without that, there's no evidence that she was knocked out, so you're left with the duct tape, and I'm sorry, no matter how soundly a kid sleeps, I think they're going to wake up if they're being suffocated with duct tape. Could she have used something else to sedate her? Of course, but there's no proof of that. Again, how you can say that the circumstances of that death meet the legal standard for murder if you aren't reasonably certain what those circumstances were? It's not about what I think happened, or what I can speculate happened, it's about what can be proven BARD. I understand how your conclusion might be different from mine, but that's why we have juries composed of more than one or two people. Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate hearing different points of view.

 

[Jstc4caylee]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to ignore that fact, it's just that I don't think they've presented enough evidence to say that chloroform was in fact used. Without that, there's no evidence that she was knocked out, so you're left with the duct tape, and I'm sorry, no matter how soundly a kid sleeps, I think they're going to wake up if they're being suffocated with duct tape. Could she have used something else to sedate her? Of course, but there's no proof of that. Again, how you can say that the circumstances of that death meet the legal standard for murder if you aren't reasonably certain what those circumstances were? It's not about what I think happened, or what I can speculate happened, it's about what can be proven BARD. I understand how your conclusion might be different from mine, but that's why we have juries composed of more than one or two people. Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate hearing different points of view.

Moo is there is way more "evidence" there was chloroform in the picture.
The myspace ref about doing it to your girlfriend made by ICA's bf, the Chl. search, the Chl in the car, one bf testified that she did indeed have "issues' with Caylee when in came to bedtime....All those times when no one knows who had Caylee, prior to June 16th...probably more I missed.

 

[Who_What_When]

The thing that seems weird to me is that people seem to think that if we can't prove 100 percent how she did it, then we must acquit. That's the kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off.


I mean COME ON, ok we don't NEED to know exactly HOW she did it to know that she did it. Just like Scott Peterson.

It's almost as if people are so caught up in the details that they are missing the forest for the trees.

Think of the situation as "innocently" as you possibly can..........

Poor girl screws up and over doses her kid. She tries to cover it up by pretending she's been kidnapped. So she spins this story that Zanny has her and wants it to go on for a bit to put distance between herself and her daughter and maybe have the cops thinking Zanny took her and went to Mexico.

Heck maybe she even was influenced by the Madelaine McCain story and thought she'd be seen as a victim in all of this.

So she lets it go and go and go.


Ok maybe I could believe that. Maybe I could also believe that in her stupid state she thought she'd be treated like the McCains and become famous and get lots of money. I mean did she do anything different than they might have done? Drugged her child and went out and then the child is missing?

So all of this seems to maaaaybe make sense. Until you get to the point that she didn't report her missing for 31 days and that she was out having a good time.

Even if you want to say that she was in a sense of detachment, or that she was in denial, whatever you want to say, it is not humanly possible for someone who loves their child to have gone 31 days without losing it and snapping at some point. At some point when confronted she would have broken down. And it is three years later and she still hasn't.

So that in and of itself speaks volumes.

I don't know how else to explain this as I have tried several times... it's not that some of us don't believe that she is guilty, it's that under the law it will be hard to find her guilty of first degree murder UNLESS you believe it was proven that Casey MURDERED Caylee and without having any idea how this might have happened you can't conclusively say she was murdered.

There are two major differences between this case and the Scott Peterson case:

In the Scott Peterson case they might not have known how Laci died BUT they did know that she was murdered by the way her body was found.

The SA proved that Scott Peterson had a motive for wanting Laci dead which added to his guilt.

Neither of these can be said in this case.

 

[Bon]

The thing that seems weird to me is that people seem to think that if we can't prove 100 percent how she did it, then we must acquit. That's the kind of thinking that got O.J. Simpson off.


I mean COME ON, ok we don't NEED to know exactly HOW she did it to know that she did it. Just like Scott Peterson.

It's almost as if people are so caught up in the details that they are missing the forest for the trees.

Think of the situation as "innocently" as you possibly can..........

Poor girl screws up and over doses her kid. She tries to cover it up by pretending she's been kidnapped. So she spins this story that Zanny has her and wants it to go on for a bit to put distance between herself and her daughter and maybe have the cops thinking Zanny took her and went to Mexico.

Heck maybe she even was influenced by the Madelaine McCain story and thought she'd be seen as a victim in all of this.

So she lets it go and go and go.


Ok maybe I could believe that. Maybe I could also believe that in her stupid state she thought she'd be treated like the McCains and become famous and get lots of money. I mean did she do anything different than they might have done? Drugged her child and went out and then the child is missing?

So all of this seems to maaaaybe make sense. Until you get to the point that she didn't report her missing for 31 days and that she was out having a good time.

Even if you want to say that she was in a sense of detachment, or that she was in denial, whatever you want to say, it is not humanly possible for someone who loves their child to have gone 31 days without losing it and snapping at some point. At some point when confronted she would have broken down. And it is three years later and she still hasn't.

So that in and of itself speaks volumes.

Great no nonsense post...............common sense

 

[2goldfish]

I don't know how else to explain this as I have tried several times... it's not that some of us don't believe that she is guilty, it's that under the law it will be hard to find her guilty of first degree murder UNLESS you believe it was proven that Casey MURDERED Caylee and without having any idea how this might have happened you can't conclusively say she was murdered.

There are two major differences between this case and the Scott Peterson case:

In the Scott Peterson case they might not have known how Laci died BUT they did know that she was murdered by the way her body was found.

The SA proved that Scott Peterson had a motive for wanting Laci dead which added to his guilt.

Neither of these can be said in this case.

my bold

I'm struggling how to word this so it doesnt come off as snarky, please believe I am not trying to snark - can you tell me what the difference is in how laci's body was found that differs from how caylee's was found, as far as your opinion as to determine homicide?

I might be missing something as I did not follow laci & connor's case.

I am sure SP killed laci & connor just as I am sure ICA killed caylee but they look equally homicidal to me so far as how their bodies were found.

 

[Whisperer]

I agree that none of us have heard motive and it is always nice to hear motive but it is not necessary. The evidence of all the photos and her behavior of the 31 days speaks for itself. She wanted a life free of Caylee.

 

[Who_What_When]

For those of you who are saying they don’t need to know how Caylee died, they don’t need to know it was from chloroform or the duct tape and that they are absolutely sure this wasn’t an accident, that Casey murdered Caylee because of the 31 days, well please explain to me how you get pass #2 (a, b or c) on the instructions the jury will receive for them to determine first degree murder, because without passing #2, you can’t get to #3.

1. Victim is dead.

2.
a. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was engaged in the commission of crime alleged.
b. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was attempting to commit crime alleged.
c. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant, or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of crime alleged.

3. Defendant was the person who actually killed victim.

 

[Who_What_When]

my bold

I'm struggling how to word this so it doesnt come off as snarky, please believe I am not trying to snark - can you tell me what the difference is in how laci's body was found that differs from how caylee's was found, as far as your opinion as to determine homicide?

I might be missing something as I did not follow laci & connor's case.

I am sure SP killed laci & connor just as I am sure ICA killed caylee but they look equally homicidal to me so far as how their bodies were found.

The body was decapitated, the forearms were missing, the right foot was gone, and the left leg from the knee down was missing. Later reports from the medical examiner revealed that there were injuries, two cracked ribs, that happened at or about the time of death.

There is absolutely nothing similar to the way the bodies were found. The only similarity was decomposition.

 

[Who_What_When]

I agree that none of us have heard motive and it is always nice to hear motive but it is not necessary. The evidence of all the photos and her behavior of the 31 days speaks for itself. She wanted a life free of Caylee.

I agree, it's not necessary. I was stating this because this case was being compared to the Scott Peterson case and in that case there was a clear motive which added to his guilt.

 

[Whisperer]

I know BARD that ICA killed Caylee. She placed three layers of tape on her face and left her in a swamp. I do not need to know the details of the suffering Caylee went through. It was a willful, vile, selfish act done by a woman who hated her mother and wanted to be free of responsibility and do what she wanted to do when she wanted to do it. The evidence shows us what she was doing immediatedly after Caylee's death which proves the point of her happiness w/o Caylee around.

Because the law states that the method of death and the motive for death is not necessary to convict a person of murder I, I stand by my conclusion that this was murder in the first degree.

 

[Whisperer]

The body was decapitated, the forearms were missing, the right foot was gone, and the left leg from the knee down was missing. Later reports from the medical examiner revealed that there were injuries, two cracked ribs, that happened at or about the time of death.

There is absolutely nothing similar to the way the bodies were found. The only similarity was decomposition.

The body falls apart upon decomposition. There was no evidence that SP mutilated Laci.

 

[tbgo]

Juries are notoriously hard to read.

 

[Whisperer]

For those of you who are saying they don’t need to know how Caylee died, they don’t need to know it was from chloroform or the duct tape and that they are absolutely sure this wasn’t an accident, that Casey murdered Caylee because of the 31 days, well please explain to me how you get pass #2 (a, b or c) on the instructions the jury will receive for them to determine first degree murder, because without passing #2, you can’t get to #3.

1. Victim is dead.

2.
a. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was engaged in the commission of crime alleged.
b. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was attempting to commit crime alleged.
c. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant, or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of crime alleged.

3. Defendant was the person who actually killed victim.

In regards to #2:

a. yes, the death occurred as a consequence of her placing duct tape on the baby's mouth which is abusive.
b. Yes, the death was a consequence the defendant attempting to get rid of her child who was a there with her when she was experiencing rage. Rage determined by number of layers.
c. yes, the occurred as a consequence of the defendent leaving the child while duct tape was sealing her breathing and not calling for help to save the child's life..total disregard.