Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[mrsu]

BBM: If by 'intact' you mean, in place, the mandible will stay in place until the muscle, skin, and other soft tissue decompose. The tape held it in place. That is what is remarkable about this case. More than one of the experts mentioned that it is usual to not find the mandible near the skull in cases where skeletal remains are found.

Thanks for the reply. I guess I was just wondering how it stays in place even after decomposition and AFTER the tape had slid off from decomp? Maybe the question is more of an anatomical one...if the muscles and ligaments decompose, what holds it in place at the skeletonized state?

 

[LolaMoon08]

Has the defense raised any reasonable doubt? IMO, they have not. Not only have they not raised reasonable doubt, but they have actually helped me, personally, better understand how evil Casey Anthony actually is.

This will be a long post, do bare with me please.

What makes me laugh is that Cheney Mason could stand up at the podium yesterday and say that because no one knows the "who, what, when, where's, and how's" of the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death, that Casey deserves an aquittal. But wasn't it Jose Baez, in his opening statement, that told us that Casey and George were present when Caylee died from an accidental drowning on June 16th, 2008 at the Anthony home?

The only thing that Casey proved with this theory is that she has known since June 16th, 2008 that Caylee was deceased and that she was present at the time of death.

IMO, the evidence presented to the jury (phone calls, jail visits, etc...) proves that George knew nothing about an accidental drowning in that backyard. Casey's own words and actions during these caught on camera/audio moments proves that she could care less about Caylee and that she is beyond angry that no one is concentrating on her! You can hear the distain for Caylee in her voice when she says "All they care about is Caylee." Yes, Casey, because there were so many other things to care about more than a missing two-year-old baby. :banghead:

Her elaborate lies to LE, lies that she would not back down on, proves how far she would go in order to distance herself away from her crime. To say she lived in this "magical thinking" world is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If she really believed what she was saying, her stories would not have changed or made more elaborate to cover her bum. She was not living in some alternate universe. She knew she was lying and expanded on these lies to fit into her lies. When a certain lie was not working out the way she planned... she would change it. Sawgrass/Jay Blanchard Park is one of many instances when she changed her story. This shows she was fully aware of her lies... that she did not believe her lies. IMO.

If she really believed her lies... she would not have turned around in that hallway and admitted to lying. Someone who believes in their own lies would not admit to lying and make up some elaborate excuse for that lie. Like wanting to hand out flyers of her missing child at the gates when she didn't even bring a picture of Caylee with her.

About the chloroform searches. We all know Casey made those searches. We know Cindy lied about making those searches. It is obvious that both these women know the significance of the chloroform searches and therefore Cindy felt the need to lie for Casey. I have no idea what the chloroform was used for, but the fact that Casey searched for "How to make chloroform" and the fact that an excessive amount of chloroform was in the trunk of that car, imo, proves that chloroform played a role in Caylee's death somehow. Whether it was used on Caylee to keep her from waking up ever again or it was used to get rid of evidence... we will never know. We can however come to the conclusion that chloroform played some role in this case. The fact that it was in the same exact place as Caylee's body was decomposing... is... all we know. Why? It will be up to the jury to decide. It will be a hard decision... one that I know they will put as much thought into as we have all here.

The duct tape. This is where Casey is in trouble. There is no reason, at all, to put duct tape on a two-year-old babies face. None. At. All. This, imo, is the cause of death. I believe Dr. G. also agrees that the duct tape was the murder weapon, but she could not legally write it down on the autopsy report because she could not prove it. We all know that a two-year-old baby does not put duct tape around her own face. The fact that there were three long strips of duct tape on this innocent babies face proves that it was done by someone who was filled with rage. Caylee, in Casey's mind, wronged her in some way? I could see Caylee simply crying for her Ci Ci or her Jo Jo and that would throw Casey into a massive rage. The fact that Casey had a hot date that night and the fact that Cindy wasn't answering her phone calls to watch the snot head would make Casey angry. The fact that Casey thought that Cindy owed it to her to watch Caylee makes me sick (text message to Amy). It was Casey playing the big sister annoyed with her little sister act. Casey was stuck babysitting for Cindy... in Casey's mind. :banghead:

Anyways, the duct tape, imo, is the murder weapon which equals murder. Again, it will be up to the jury to decide.

Another thing that will be weighing on the jury's minds is the fact that Casey has taken no responsibility for what has happened to Caylee.

Caylee drowned, right?? But it wasn't Casey's fault that she didn't call 911? It was George's fault.

George covered up Caylee's death.

George put Caylee in garbage bags.

George placed duct tape over Caylee's face.

George placed Caylee in Casey's trunk for 2-5 days, without her knowing, and then removed her from the trunk, without Casey knowing.

George placed Caylee's body somewhere... no one knows.

Roy Kronk found Caylee's body... no one knows when or where? Collected all her tiny little bones and kept them hidden somewhere.

On December 11th, 2008, because he was broke, Roy thought it was a good idea to place Caylee's bones on Suburban Drive. According to Dr. Spitz, Roy placed the manible back in place with duct tape. Roy being the brilliant man that he is, knew to scatter Caylee's bones over 1/2 an acre. He also played fetch with Caylee's bones with the scavengers in the swamp so it would give the appearance of animal activity.

We know Caylee was in the trunk of Casey's car... we know that George did not put her there. We know Caylee was wrapped in trash bags, a blanket and placed in a laundry bag. We know George did not do this. We know that Caylee was thrown out into those woods like trash... we know George did not do that. We know that duct tape was on Caylee's face. George did not do that. We know that Caylee's remains have been out in those woods since Casey threw them out there. Roy Kronk did not move them or alter them in any way.

All we know is that Casey continues to lie about the facts surrounding the death of Caylee. Only a guilty person would have something to hide by continuously shifting the blame to anyone other than herself.

The jury will get to see her photobucket account. You know, the one where there is a little girl, who resembles Caylee, looking up at a Teddy Bear hanging from a noose that reads "Why do people kill people, who kill people, in order to show that killing people is bad?" Or something along those lines. All the skeletons. All the hearts. All dark thoughts.

I could go on and on and on with this. When everything comes full circle... not just looking at the evidence of the chloroform... a reasonable conclusion is that Caylee Anthony was murdered. That duct tape was the likely murder weapon and that Casey Anthony is 100% responsible.

That is what I am hoping for when the jury deliberates. Adding in everything else that has happened in the last few years. Casey not reporting Caylee missing. Her lies, upon lies, upon lies. Her partying. Her telling people different stories. Her complete distain for Caylee. Her non fear of her parents. Everything! The jury will come to the conclusion that Caylee was not only murdered, but intentionally murdered.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Well, if the jury is going to decide it was an accident, but the mom didn't grieve because she did not care one way or the other if the child was dead. And the mom put the body in the trunk, then wrapped it in garbage bags and threw it in a dump--are they going to want to show her any mercy or any benefit of the doubt?
I wouldn't. Her actions--trying to blame innocent people for the childs death, torturing her family for the past 3 years, accusing her father and brother of vile acts, accusing her dad of being involved---these actions should earn her LWOP.

I completely understand and empathize with your argument, but, and I know I'm going to get slammed for this so I'll say in advance that I mean absolutely no disrespect to Caylee, the legal term for what you just described is "miscarriage of justice". No matter what Casey did, the jurors have a moral and legal responsibility that can not be ignored. Suggesting they cast that aside and the law into their own hands is a dangerous thing.

 

[katydid23]

Respectfully snipped by me

I disagree, it's not that black and white. What would I need? Any evidence Casey actually manufactured chloroform would have been enough for me.

I am not sure how one would get that kind of evidence. I would imagine she paid cash for the easily acquired ingredients. So how would the state be expected to have evidence of her mixing a bunch of chemicals together in the privacy of her home or yard?

I think the fact that she purposely looked up the recipe, and that she deleted that fact when Yuri came around is pretty damning. Add to that the chloroform level in the trunk, and that is enough for me.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I am not sure how one would get that kind of evidence. I would imagine she paid cash for the easily acquired ingredients. So how would the state be expected to have evidence of her mixing a bunch of chemicals together in the privacy of her home or yard?

I think the fact that she purposely looked up the recipe, and that she deleted that fact when Yuri came around is pretty damning. Add to that the chloroform level in the trunk, and that is enough for me.

And I don't dispute your right to think that way. It's not enough for me, there's an extremely long post further up that explains in detail why I feel that way. Sometimes they just don't have enough evidence. Does that suck? Absolutely. Should we be understanding and cut the state some slack? Absolutely not. It is their burden and it is there for a reason.

 

[katydid23]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I was just wondering how it stays in place even after decomposition and AFTER the tape had slid off from decomp? Maybe the question is more of an anatomical one...if the muscles and ligaments decompose, what holds it in place at the skeletonized state?

I think there was some testimony that the roots that grew up around the skull had kept it intact after the tape came apart.

 

[katydid23]

I completely understand and empathize with your argument, but, and I know I'm going to get slammed for this so I'll say in advance that I mean absolutely no disrespect to Caylee, the legal term for what you just described is "miscarriage of justice". No matter what Casey did, the jurors have a moral and legal responsibility that can not be ignored. Suggesting they cast that aside and the law into their own hands is a dangerous thing.

The would not be casting it aside. There is more than enough evidence that has been presented by the state to conclude it was a murder or at the least, aggravated child abuse resulting in death. It would not be a miscarriage of justice to vote for guilty on that charge.

The things that I described, her falsely accusing others of kidnapping/killing her child, ARE evidence of her guilt, imo. If it had been a simple accident then she would have no need nor reason to accuse others of murder. The fact that she has done so and still continues to do so is only more evidence of HER GUILT.

It would hardly be a miscarriage of justice if she was so cgarged and found guilty. The true miscarriage would be if she were to walk away scott free. imo

When the jury has to decide between it being an innocent accident or a malicious intent then they will have to take lots of factors into account. I believe that the way she disposed of the child and the way she disposed of her friends and family are necessary factors in that decision making process.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't believe the defense caused itself any reasonable doubt, yet I am still not convinced of first-degree murder. I'm just not. I think it is possible but I don't think it was proven beyond any and all reasonable doubts. Casey is not a "normal" person and I think the jury has been able to see that, so her actions might well be different from those of a "reasonable" person. Her family is very far from functional. I am not convinced that this family would react in any way as most families would do, about anything.

So this could be the family that proves the exception, the one family that would not call 911 if a child drowned and might do everything Casey seems to have done, including the seemingly panic-driven act of throwing her into the trunk and pretending it never happened, until the smell made her act.
JMO

 

[aeneas1]

it was determined that laci's manner of death was homicide and cause of death undetermined, no? sounds familiar

No, actually it doesn't. It's like saying a Porsche and a gremlin are similar because they have 4 wheels and an engine, the case's were very different.

in both cases: the defendants were charged with first-degree murder with the state seeking the death penalty, the manner of death was determined to be homicide while cause of death was undetermined, the victims' bodies were so decomposed that forensic examinations yielded little, the defendants lived it up during the time the victims were known to be missing, the bodies were eventually found near locations where the defendants were known to have been, the defendants' attorneys pointed to no physical or scientific evidence while claiming insufficient circumstantial evidence existed, and the defendants demonstrated, through their demeanor and actions, an abhorrent lack of concern over the loss of a loved one. yep, very different cases, nothing in common, a porsche and a gremlin.

 

[Bon]

I don't believe the defense caused itself any reasonable doubt, yet I am still not convinced of first-degree murder. I'm just not. I think it is possible but I don't think it was proven beyond any and all reasonable doubts. Casey is not a "normal" person and I think the jury has been able to see that, so her actions might well be different from those of a "reasonable" person. Her family is very far from functional. I am not convinced that this family would react in any way as most families would do, about anything.

So this could be the family that proves the exception, the one family that would not call 911 if a child drowned and might do everything Casey seems to have done, including the seemingly panic-driven act of throwing her into the trunk and pretending it never happened, until the smell made her act.
JMO

Cindy is a liar but I do believe the one true thing she said was her call to 911 about not being able to find her granddtr and the smell of the dead body in the car....the fear in her voice was very authentic to me....after that, all down here...............

 

[aeneas1]

I stand corrected, but there was still evidence that supported a claim of a violent death.

can you point me to it?

 

[ladylurker]

WOW, hard to keep up with this thread!

GG and W_W_W, you may consider adding to your siggies something about the definition of reasonable doubt (specifically the vacillating part) as well as the difference between being pretty sure she is guilty/a monster/the worst mom ever and being able to say BARD that there is enough evidence to connect her to the crime.

i am not convinced that she chloroformed her, or that duct tape was the murder weapon, but i still feel BARD that she is guilty. in the SP trial i remember reading that many jurors felt it was his actions after the fact that spoke loudly of guilt to them. i feel that as well with ICA and do not vacillate on this at all... even though i am not sure BARD what the cause of death was, i am sure BARD that casey killed her. the dots might not all connect perfectly for me, but i am still clearly seeing this. i feel that the circumstantial evidence is enough to prove BARD that casey killed her.

however! that is MY interpretation. there is no evidence such as a video of the crime or a confession, mostly because of how long it took to find the remains, but that is not a requirement for conviction. BUT, i can certainly see that for some, the questions surrounding the chloroform and duct tape cause this vacillation, and the law clearly states that this vacillation is in opposition to being convinced BARD. i have wondered off and on if caylee's death was maybe an accident, and that it solved many of ICA's problems and so she was kind of happy it went this way without her actually having to kill the child. that explanation would explain the evidence and the defendant's actions after the crime, but it would not support a premeditated murder.

it seems like because GG, W_W_W, and others feel that the cause of death evidence is insufficient to be proven BARD, and they are pointing this out (which IMO is very useful because we have no idea how this jury thinks and hearing different opinions from different people looking at the same evidence is VERY useful), others are assuming that they think ICA is innocent or should be acquitted. so i just wanted to add my own reminder that the unsure part here is NOT whether or not ICA was responsible for caylee's death, it is whether the evidence points to 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, aggravated manslaughter, or manslaughter.

many of us are very emotionally invested in this trial and automatically may feel put off, defensive, angry, etc when hearing opinions that the burden of proof is not met. however it is important to realize that we all perceive, analyze, and decide on the evidence in our own way. i agree that it is VERY CLEAR that ICA is responsible for her death, but given the chloroform/duct tape doubts, i can understand why there are arguments about whether the burden of proof is met for a premeditated murder vs manslaughter. no one is saying, at least that i have read, that ICA is not responsible or should not be held accountable. the argument really is whether the burden of proof for premeditated murder has been met, and since the waters are murky on this, i think it is completely reasonable and understandable that some are not 100% convinced on that.

IMO casey killed her and i am fully convinced of that, but i have seen a lot more evidence than the jury has and wonder what they think of the holes in the case. no matter how awesome the state team is, there are some holes in the case because the majority of the evidence is circumstantial. that is largely due to the unfortunate fact that it took so long to find caylee's body (darn tropical storms) and the extreme lack of cooperation on the part of the anthony family during the search for caylee.

 

[GeekyGirl]

can you point me to it?

Perimortem still means it could have occurred before IIRC, a lot of the jurors felt that supported a violent criminal death. FWIW I honestly don't know that I could have found SP guilty, based on the trial, but I didn't watch it as closely as this one.

 

[cluciano63]

No matter what we think happened, or what degree of guilt/homicide we think this was...what is important to remember, IMO, is that the 12 people who matter most may have as many different takes on it all as we are seeing here...or only person may have a different take on it but that one person may be very committed to his/her opinion. What we think really only matters in a personal way.

 

[GeekyGirl]

No matter what we think happened, or what degree of guilt/homicide we think this was...what is important to remember, IMO, is that the 12 people who matter most may have as many different takes on it all as we are seeing here...or only person may have a different take on it but that one person may be very committed to his/her opinion. What we think really only matters in a personal way.

Very true. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[GeekyGirl]

WOW, hard to keep up with this thread!

GG and W_W_W, you may consider adding to your siggies something about the definition of reasonable doubt (specifically the vacillating part) as well as the difference between being pretty sure she is guilty/a monster/the worst mom ever and being able to say BARD that there is enough evidence to connect her to the crime.

i am not convinced that she chloroformed her, or that duct tape was the murder weapon, but i still feel BARD that she is guilty. in the SP trial i remember reading that many jurors felt it was his actions after the fact that spoke loudly of guilt to them. i feel that as well with ICA and do not vacillate on this at all... even though i am not sure BARD what the cause of death was, i am sure BARD that casey killed her. the dots might not all connect perfectly for me, but i am still clearly seeing this. i feel that the circumstantial evidence is enough to prove BARD that casey killed her.

however! that is MY interpretation. there is no evidence such as a video of the crime or a confession, mostly because of how long it took to find the remains, but that is not a requirement for conviction. BUT, i can certainly see that for some, the questions surrounding the chloroform and duct tape cause this vacillation, and the law clearly states that this vacillation is in opposition to being convinced BARD. i have wondered off and on if caylee's death was maybe an accident, and that it solved many of ICA's problems and so she was kind of happy it went this way without her actually having to kill the child. that explanation would explain the evidence and the defendant's actions after the crime, but it would not support a premeditated murder.

it seems like because GG, W_W_W, and others feel that the cause of death evidence is insufficient to be proven BARD, and they are pointing this out (which IMO is very useful because we have no idea how this jury thinks and hearing different opinions from different people looking at the same evidence is VERY useful), others are assuming that they think ICA is innocent or should be acquitted. so i just wanted to add my own reminder that the unsure part here is NOT whether or not ICA was responsible for caylee's death, it is whether the evidence points to 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, aggravated manslaughter, or manslaughter.

many of us are very emotionally invested in this trial and automatically may feel put off, defensive, angry, etc when hearing opinions that the burden of proof is not met. however it is important to realize that we all perceive, analyze, and decide on the evidence in our own way. i agree that it is VERY CLEAR that ICA is responsible for her death, but given the chloroform/duct tape doubts, i can understand why there are arguments about whether the burden of proof is met for a premeditated murder vs manslaughter. no one is saying, at least that i have read, that ICA is not responsible or should not be held accountable. the argument really is whether the burden of proof for premeditated murder has been met, and since the waters are murky on this, i think it is completely reasonable and understandable that some are not 100% convinced on that.

IMO casey killed her and i am fully convinced of that, but i have seen a lot more evidence than the jury has and wonder what they think of the holes in the case. no matter how awesome the state team is, there are some holes in the case because the majority of the evidence is circumstantial. that is largely due to the unfortunate fact that it took so long to find caylee's body (darn tropical storms) and the extreme lack of cooperation on the part of the anthony family during the search for caylee.

Thank you Ladylurker, as soon as I get to my laptop, I'll change my sig As always, I really appreciate your thoughtful posts.

 

[pinkfly]

Prosecution convinced me of everything including motive but I was pretty much there before trial started. So hard to un-know things and try to see from a jury view. Defense worked hard and might have smudged a few areas but the comeback from the state was always so swift and on target.

 

[Who_What_When]

WOW, hard to keep up with this thread!

GG and W_W_W, you may consider adding to your siggies something about the definition of reasonable doubt (specifically the vacillating part) as well as the difference between being pretty sure she is guilty/a monster/the worst mom ever and being able to say BARD that there is enough evidence to connect her to the crime.

i am not convinced that she chloroformed her, or that duct tape was the murder weapon, but i still feel BARD that she is guilty. in the SP trial i remember reading that many jurors felt it was his actions after the fact that spoke loudly of guilt to them. i feel that as well with ICA and do not vacillate on this at all... even though i am not sure BARD what the cause of death was, i am sure BARD that casey killed her. the dots might not all connect perfectly for me, but i am still clearly seeing this. i feel that the circumstantial evidence is enough to prove BARD that casey killed her.

however! that is MY interpretation. there is no evidence such as a video of the crime or a confession, mostly because of how long it took to find the remains, but that is not a requirement for conviction. BUT, i can certainly see that for some, the questions surrounding the chloroform and duct tape cause this vacillation, and the law clearly states that this vacillation is in opposition to being convinced BARD. i have wondered off and on if caylee's death was maybe an accident, and that it solved many of ICA's problems and so she was kind of happy it went this way without her actually having to kill the child. that explanation would explain the evidence and the defendant's actions after the crime, but it would not support a premeditated murder.

it seems like because GG, W_W_W, and others feel that the cause of death evidence is insufficient to be proven BARD, and they are pointing this out (which IMO is very useful because we have no idea how this jury thinks and hearing different opinions from different people looking at the same evidence is VERY useful), others are assuming that they think ICA is innocent or should be acquitted. so i just wanted to add my own reminder that the unsure part here is NOT whether or not ICA was responsible for caylee's death, it is whether the evidence points to 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, aggravated manslaughter, or manslaughter.

many of us are very emotionally invested in this trial and automatically may feel put off, defensive, angry, etc when hearing opinions that the burden of proof is not met. however it is important to realize that we all perceive, analyze, and decide on the evidence in our own way. i agree that it is VERY CLEAR that ICA is responsible for her death, but given the chloroform/duct tape doubts, i can understand why there are arguments about whether the burden of proof is met for a premeditated murder vs manslaughter. no one is saying, at least that i have read, that ICA is not responsible or should not be held accountable. the argument really is whether the burden of proof for premeditated murder has been met, and since the waters are murky on this, i think it is completely reasonable and understandable that some are not 100% convinced on that.

IMO casey killed her and i am fully convinced of that, but i have seen a lot more evidence than the jury has and wonder what they think of the holes in the case. no matter how awesome the state team is, there are some holes in the case because the majority of the evidence is circumstantial. that is largely due to the unfortunate fact that it took so long to find caylee's body (darn tropical storms) and the extreme lack of cooperation on the part of the anthony family during the search for caylee.

Thank you Ladylurker! I couldn't (and believe me I've tried!) have said that better.

 

[GeekyGirl]

in both cases: the defendants were charged with first-degree murder with the state seeking the death penalty, the manner of death was determined to be homicide while cause of death was undetermined, the victims' bodies were so decomposed that forensic examinations yielded little, the defendants lived it up during the time the victims were known to be missing, the bodies were eventually found near locations where the defendants were known to have been, the defendants' attorneys pointed to no physical or scientific evidence while claiming insufficient circumstantial evidence existed, and the defendants demonstrated, through their demeanor and actions, an abhorrent lack of concern over the loss of a loved one. yep, very different cases, nothing in common, a porsche and a gremlin.

I'm not going to argue the SP case here and my comment was snarkier than I intended, so I apologize. It was also probably hyperbolic, but my point was that there are differences in the case that are important. It's incredibly frustrating to have to argue the same points over and over, and concede time and time again that others are entitled to their opinion, and not be given the same respect by some (in general, not directed at the OP in particular) Having doubts about 1st degree does make me unreasonable, nor does it mean I lack common sense. I'm just trying to work my way through an incredibly emotional case, just like everyone else here.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Prosecution convinced me of everything including motive but I was pretty much there before trial started. So hard to un-know things and try to see from a jury view. Defense worked hard and might have smudged a few areas but the comeback from the state was always so swift and on target.

Thank you for that thought. I didn't really have a firm conviction or even much knowledge about the case really, before the trial started, and I think that may contribute to some of the way I interpret the evidence.