Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Bon]

I don't know. That's my argument. I can't say it was murder because I don't know what killed her. I do think it has been proven that Casey was responsible by how she hid the body and all her actions afterward which leads to aggravated manslaughter.

Not meaning to be snarky but don't you mean irresponsible?

 

[Nova24]

JB knew what CA's testimony was going to be and let her proceed anyway. I don't know if he was astute enough to know records would still exist but his IT person certainly should have. It would have been better had she never lied about it. If she was going to lie she should have said she told IC to make the searches for her as she was working. That would have been a much better lie.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Because she's HER MOTHER> and the VICTIM was a toddler. Is it really that hard to put together?

WHO ELSE could be responsible that would add up to the not reporting it for 31 days? Why else would she have reacted the way she did? What sense does it make?

I mean you are acting like Caylee was a wayward teenager or something. Caylee was a BABY.........if a person is 100 percent for her well being and the baby goes missing for 31 days it's completely ridiculous to suggest that the mother is not the one responsible here.

There was no father involved. There were two other grandparents desperately seeking the child without even knowing something this horrible had happened.

I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand.

And no one is arguing she's not responsible, but what in your post addresses the issue that the death was the result of a premeditated criminal act, or the result of aggravated child abuse?

 

[GeekyGirl]

JB knew what CA's testimony was going to be and let her proceed anyway. I don't know if he was astute enough to know records would still exist but his IT person certainly should have. It would have been better had she never lied about it. If she was going to lie she should have said she told IC to make the searches for her as she was working. That would have been a much better lie.

Agreed, the defense in this case is just ludicrous.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Not meaning to be snarky but don't you mean irresponsible?

Responsible as in accountable.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I totally understand what you are saying, and its what scares me the most..
I have seen the Jury instructions that HHJP gave, specific to this case, but I do not know what the standard instructions or Nor do any of us know what instructions the lawyers are writing in as well.

So,if you can share what you know exactly the law says, that would be helpful. But this a a circumstantial case, and it does not have to be proved with out a shadow of a doubt, but a reasonable doubt. There is NOTHING reasonable about what the defense showed , (yes, I know they do not have to prove burden) but...the defense blew any other possible reasonable doubt out the door...it can either be death by drowning, or whatever the States says.....IMTOSO ......lol

It has nothing to do with the defense showed, the arguments are about whether the state met the burden of proof for 1st degree murder. To say that if the defense's case isn't plausible so the state's must be totally correct is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. The basic elements of the crime as given by statute cannot be modified by jury instructions.

 

[Who_What_When]

Not meaning to be snarky but don't you mean irresponsible?

No, I meant responsible as in responsible for her death by her actions after the fact.

 

[Nova24]

Who's arguing that she should be acquitted? I've NEVER said that. We're talking about the difference between manslaughter and homicide based of the elements of the crime per the Florida statute.

I think this is important to point out because when I first started reading here I thought many were fighting for an asquittal as well until I started flat out asking. Glad you made this point.

It will come down to whether they think she did accidentally drowned or was drugged. I don't see evidence of a drowning but I feel certain about the chloro search and use of it. I feel certain she was in that trunK. I believe the duct tape was used when still alive. I do think a good argument can be made she was only looking to quiet her not kill her but then I come to Agg Child Abuse which is still felony murder.

While I don't think jury will be a big fan of any of the Anthonys I don't think they will think George had anything to do with it. I don't think they ever should have made him a part of it.

 

[Jstc4caylee]

It has nothing to do with the defense showed, the arguments are about whether the state met the burden of proof for 1st degree murder. To say that if the defense's case isn't plausible so the state's must be totally correct is a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. The basic elements of the crime as given by statute cannot be modified by jury instructions.

BBM ..yes,i know that is why I qualified that, by what is in my parenthesis.
IMO...the state has met their burden.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I think this is important to point out because when I first started reading here I thought many were fighting for an asquittal as well until I started flat out asking. Glad you made this point.

It will come down to whether they think she did accidentally drowned or was drugged. I don't see evidence of a drowning but I feel certain about the chloro search and use of it. I feel certain she was in that trunK. I believe the duct tape was used when still alive. I do think a good argument can be made she was only looking to quiet her not kill her but then I come to Agg Child Abuse which is still felony murder.

While I don't think jury will be a big fan of any of the Anthonys I don't think they will think George had anything to do with it. I don't think they ever should have made him a part of it.

Thanks again. I can understand how if someone feels certain about the chloroform, they could support a murder charge. I don't, but I respect your opinion.

 

[Who_What_When]

I totally understand what you are saying, and its what scares me the most..
I have seen the Jury instructions that HHJP gave, specific to this case, but I do not know what the standard instructions or Nor do any of us know what instructions the lawyers are writing in as well.

So,if you can share what you know exactly the law says, that would be helpful. But this a a circumstantial case, and it does not have to be proved with out a shadow of a doubt, but a reasonable doubt. There is NOTHING reasonable about what the defense showed , (yes, I know they do not have to prove burden) but...the defense blew any other possible reasonable doubt out the door...it can either be death by drowning, or whatever the States says.....IMTOSO ......lol

It scares me as well. Even though I think the SA did a wonderful job with what they had, I had hoped that they were going to be able prove to me BARD that Casey murdered Caylee. Hopefully the jury thinks they did, if they believe that the duct tape or chloroform was used to kill her then they will find her guilty of first degree murder.

Here is some information on the law:

Jury Instructions:

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/...9!OpenDocument

A link to a Legal analyst explaining jury instructions and murder charges:

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...murder-charges

 

[GeekyGirl]

BBM ..yes,i know that is why I qualified that, by what is in my parenthesis.
IMO...the state has met their burden.

I completely understand if you feel the state has met the burden, I just don't share that opinion. Not trying to disrespect anyone, just share my feelings.

NM, I'm an idioit and totally missed what was in your first post, I apologize.

 

[Tuffy]

I give up! OMG! AGAIN, I THINK CASEY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAYLEE'S DEATH!!! I NEVER EVER SAID I DIDN'T. Look at the law, that is what I'm talking about. I am not going by my emotions, my thoughts, my feelings, I'll looking at #2 on the jury instructions and without having an idea of how she killed her I wouldn't be able to convict her of 1st degree murder.

Taking your quote: "I'm completely puzzled why this is so confusing for some to understand." ITA! Why is it so hard to understand the jury instructions?

I don't think the jury instructions mean what you think they mean. We don't need a blow by blow detailed account of the victim being killed, in order to get past number 2 in your list. The jury will not have to rely on emotions, only common sense to determine how Caylee was killed. IMO, knowing that the duct tape covered her face is enough to know that Caylee could not have taken another breath once the tape was in place.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I don't think the jury instructions mean what you think they mean. We don't need a blow by blow detailed account of the victim being killed, in order to get past number 2 in your list. The jury will not have to rely on emotions, only common sense to determine how Caylee was killed. IMO, knowing that the duct tape covered her face is enough to know that Caylee could not have taken another breath once the tape was in place.

Again, that assumes that you accept the fact that the duct tape was applied before death BARD.

 

[Tuffy]

To answer the OP, has the defense created reasonable doubt? IMO, no. Not only have they not created reasonable doubt, they've helped the state's case. The last day of testimony put on by the defense seemed to me to only bolster the state's case against Casey.

 

[Tuffy]

Again, that assumes that you accept the fact that the duct tape was applied before death BARD.

I do, and I don't think the jury will have trouble with that either.

 

[Nova24]

Maybe the closings will help to pull it together for everyone and lean people in a different direction.

For those that aren't sold on the chloro do you think she drowned accidentally and then covered it up? Do the chloro searches and chloro in car bother you at all? What wasn't met for her in regards to the chloro?

While I could find for 1st I still think jury will comprise with lesser charges. I hope it's not hung.

 

[Sleuths4Me]

maybe in the state's closing they will touch on the premeditation and tell the jurors that it can happen in a blink of an eye..as soon as the 1st piece of duct tape was put on, as soon as the 2nd piece was put on, as soon as the 3rd piece was put on.

I really think that the SA will wrap the trial up in a nice package and hand it over to the jury and they will come back with the right decision.

 

[Nova24]

I think it could be the Agg Child Abuse not premed that could get her the felony murder charge which I think puts DP back on table. That would prob worry me more if I was DT then the premed.

 

[Jstc4caylee]

That's what I get for coming in in the middle of stuff....I am actually leaning at Felony murder FWIW