I don't agree. A "what if" is not reasonable doubt. There has to be some evidence or discrepancy in the testimony to support that doubt. It is not reasonable to think that someone stored a dead body, totally unrelated to this case, in the trunk of a car belonging to the mother of a missing child during the time that the car was in the tow yard. There is, as far as we know, no DNA evidence showing that another body was in the trunk.
IF there was testimony showing that one of the workers at the tow yard killed someone and that the body was missing for a certain period of time while Casey's car was in the lot, that might constitute reasonable doubt.
Just playing devil's advocate here, what proves that Casey was THE ONE that put Caylee's dead body in the trunk? Is it just her behavior that makes her guilty? Is behavior enough to convict?
Oh and another thing, they should ask why cindy called 911 and reported the car stolen when she actually had it...they picked it up from the tow yard. Maybe that was the "first" plan, to plant a seed that someone stole the car, hence it was towed and there was a terrible stink in the car. Then they found out from casey that she knew about the smell and was last seen with the car at amscot.
Just my thoughts, not based on any legal knowledge whatsoever --
The prosecution doesn't have to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that Casey put Caylee's body in the trunk, they merely have to prevent evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe she is the one who did it.
Some of that evidence (I'm sure there's more):
Casey left the Anthony home with Caylee on the afternoon of June 16th. When she arrived at Tony's apartment a few hours later, Caylee was not with her and was never seen again. There is no evidence that Casey's car was in the possession of any other person during that time or that Casey left Caylee with another person.
Casey would not allow George to look in the trunk of the car for the wheel chucks.
If someone else put the body in the car, who removed it?
Casey's conflicting stories about the cause of the odor in the car show that she had knowledge of the body being in the trunk.
Just playing devil's advocate here, what proves that Casey was THE ONE that put Caylee's dead body in the trunk? Is it just her behavior that makes her guilty? Is behavior enough to convict?
Is KC's behavior the least credible out of all the characters in this case?
If the answer is YES, there's your answer.
Yeah, I can buy that. And actually I do. It's the 31 days for reasonable doubt that worries me. Wonder what story the defense will come up with culminating in the fact that Casey didn't have possession of the car for that short period of time.
There's no reason for worry.
To create reasonable doubt, the defense will have to explain away:
Casey not reporting that Caylee was kidnapped by a phantom babysitter.
Someone putting a random dead body in Casey's car trunk and then removing it again, without Casey's knowledge.
Caylee's DNA found in the trunk and Casey refusing to allow George to look in the trunk.
Casey not packing any of Caylee's clothing or purchasing any baby supplies.
Casey abandoning a perfectly good car simply because it was out of gas.
Casey's total lack of concern about her missing daughter and her refusal to provide truthful information to LE that would lead to finding Caylee.
....it goes on and on. There's just no way the defense can make sense of it all and plant reasonable doubt.
Oh and another thing, they should ask why cindy called 911 and reported the car stolen when she actually had it...they picked it up from the tow yard. Maybe that was the "first" plan, to plant a seed that someone stole the car, hence it was towed and there was a terrible stink in the car. Then they found out from casey that she knew about the smell and was last seen with the car at amscot.
can the witnesses answer baez one way and then at trial give a different answer? I have seen that happen on law and order but usually they give the district attorney a diffent answer then what they told them before.
Just playing devil's advocate here, what proves that Casey was THE ONE that put Caylee's dead body in the trunk? Is it just her behavior that makes her guilty? Is behavior enough to convict?
Dreamerlin - All this BEFORE trial???
There's no reason for worry.
To create reasonable doubt, the defense will have to explain away:
Casey not reporting that Caylee was kidnapped by a phantom babysitter.
Someone putting a random dead body in Casey's car trunk and then removing it again, without Casey's knowledge.
Caylee's DNA found in the trunk and Casey refusing to allow George to look in the trunk.
Casey not packing any of Caylee's clothing or purchasing any baby supplies.
Casey abandoning a perfectly good car simply because it was out of gas.
Casey's total lack of concern about her missing daughter and her refusal to provide truthful information to LE that would lead to finding Caylee.
....it goes on and on. There's just no way the defense can make sense of it all and plant reasonable doubt.
CA was accusing KC of stealing the car, that's why she told 911 she had a person with her who had committed grand theft auto and money crimes, she also said she had bank or credit card statements showing the theft.
Her (legal) reasoning could have been, the car is registered to her, KC left it at Amscot, didn't have it in Tampa or where ever KC kept saying she was the week the car was towed.
Notice at the time she said this she hadn't given her own or KC's name to the dispatcher. She was still trying to get KC to take her to Caylee. Originally calling LE was a threat she hadn't actually planned on following through on. But KC's behavior and refusal to get Caylee, mixed with the odor in the car forced her hand.