Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[daisy.faithfull]

I can't say the defense has given me reasonable doubt but the prosecution hasn't succeeded in getting rid of the doubts I came into the trial with.

I totally understand where you maybe coming from when it comes to those doubts. Some times I think for me they are related to the knot in your stomach that twists tighter sometimes because I'm examining this case six ways to sunday?

I guess kinda like worrying that something horrible, yet improbable will happen to a loved one who is flying and I hear there is a blizzard where they are going? When I've done that its cuz I care about the loved one, not because statistics say it is common occurence? I don't think statistics support that. I realize that so the brain spaz is very temporary. YKWIM?

IMO that doesn't concern me much at times because people on WS digest information much differently than the general public and quite possibly jurors do. We can see where the prosecution is vulnerable even when others won't because of how we look at the evidence?

But that is not always my reaction sometimes I worry because the jurors aren't processing info like WSers, ya know? Like how we evaluate scientific opinions based on the method the expert used to come to that conclusion, the experience of said expert etc. etc.

I get scared when I see that the public seems to not use that criteria to evaluate an expert. Are the jurors going to do that?

I just go up and down.

My friend says that I go until I have analysis paralysis and by brain just can't take it anymore . My boyfriend is a massive goof ball, its one of the reasons I love him when he sees me like this he does a massive comic intervention. He is taping SNLs that I haven't seen for this very purpose. Not that he needs to, he seriously is funny on his own.

 

[Nali87]

No, I don't think so. I'm not even too worried about what Cindy said yesterday because when the SA recall her to the stand for their rebuttal, they are going to rip her testimony to shreds.

I have a question. Can the DT rebut the SAs rebuttal?

The judge told the jury this would over this weekend, I can't see this being over until the end of next week at the earliest.

No they can't. The state will have the last word.

 

[Whisperer]

If anyone has doubt after today's testimony of cindy's, it is not reasonable doubt. It falls heavily on unreasonable in its entirety

 

[Nova]

I do know. But is possible that the jury could think that ICA was making a habit of looking at CA's web history as a way to see what CA was thinking if ICA felt CA was starting to be suspicious of ICA.

I think that very specific and reliable evidence refutes that, but ya know I'm wondering how juries are affected by LE technical evidence.

Is there anyway to know how the jury is going decide? It freaks me out, not just how it relates to Caylee's death but what that means about how juries in general digest information and come to conclusions very obviously go against what they here from very reliable objective scientific type evidence.

Why are so many people saying that ICA will be found innocent. People have told me that since the trial started, and I've looked at polls on the internet. I am constantly questioning possible holes in my logic as a result and I don't understand it.

Do people have so little faith in justice, LE etc?

I can't really speak for "people", but my guess is many are bothered by the inability of the State to prove an exact cause of death. (In general, the longer a body goes undiscovered, the more difficult the State's case becomes.)

I agree the 31 days of partying and the decomp odor are powerful evidence that Casey was concealing something, but what?

The 12 jurors have to agree to convict KC on the same charge of murder or manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. (I'm assuming the charges of lying to police are a given.) If some are adamant that KC premeditated the murder of Caylee while others think it was an accident due to negligence, there may be a problem.

(In another discussion katydid23 argued that jurors will be likely to horsetrade rather than declare a hung jury, and time may prove her right. They aren't supposed to do so, but these jurors know the whole world is watching. They won't want to announce they can't agree.)

 

[daisy.faithfull]

When I watched Cindy on the stand I felt as if my heart was being ripped out of my chest. I actually felt genuine upset that she was lying BUT after a restless nights sleep and pondering on whats been said I now believe that Cindy might have done the Prosecution a favour

Why? Everytime I've seen CA on the stand she's looked like a grieving grandma but yesterday she looked like a defensive mother and not all soft and fuzzy as I've seen her before, and I am so sure that the jury will see this too. She admitted that she had NOT searched for how.to.make.chloroform. and folks the timelines just dont add up and the formidable LDB will make this crystal clear and no doubt prove that CA's testimony regarding work is false. We all remember her going into great detail about her Monday schedule at work and voila the date in question .... is a Monday!

Cindy was very rehearsed in her testimony and at one point asked to have what she said read back to her (alarm bells!) Cindy, I believe was attempting to spare her daughter the DP by causing doubt...The only thing I ended up doubting was her credibility and I have ALWAYS been on her side.

Dont get me wrong I totally do not agree with what she did yesterday, I am upset, angry, disappointed, but folks we can all sleep well at night and I doubt that Cindy will ever get that luxury again. I've got a very bad feeling that CA has totally given up on life and doesnt care about anything anymore, she doesnt care what people think because she is numb, totally numb. Iv'e seen deep depression and loss before and I see it in CA - We all know in our hearts that ICA guilty and I'm sure that the jury do too -

ICA has no soul and if the reports are true that Cindy still believes her daughter is innocent then I feel even more sorry for her as the impact on her remaining sanity when she eventually has her 'lightbulb moment' ...and it may be years down the line...will be fatal for her.

I have no doubt that Cindy loved Caylee with all her being but yesterday she thought only of saving Casey.

On an end note and I'm sorry if this is a confusing post as my emotions at this time are confusing even myself - The state are now the guardians and the voice of Caylee. I have never seen LDB/JA so emotional and I hope I am not alone in the feeling that they feel genuine anger and hurt about Caylees death. They have now 'known' Caylee as long as ICA did and believe me they will fight tooth and nail for Caylee. When the prosecution stand up they stand up for Caylee, they are strong, they are firm, they are just and right....on the other hand when the defence stand up they make yet more excuses for ICA, more weak ramblings, more fluffed up excuses.

The jury are not stupid, they will have families, They have heard facts from the prosecution and boy oh boy the 31 days, the jail tapes, the decomposition, DR G, the tattoo, the duct tape and sadly the tiny skeleton of Caylee herself will speak louder than any amount of puffed up pomposity that comes out of the mouths of JB and his whiney gang

Rest in Peace Caylee Marie

I keep telling myself not to stress because while I am continually baffled when it comes to predicting what the A's will do next, most of the time when they are doing it they are very transparent about what they really believe. Don't know if their beliefs are conscious or unconscious, but I really think they are very transparent.

The jury is right there seeing the A's in a way I never will. I'd think that would make them even more aware of what all of them believe the truth, even and especially when they are lying.

 

[Whisperer]

Cindy also lied about the trunk stain. I wish they would have asked her if it smelled then also...but it will happen.

She rambles on (just like her DD) and tries to spin and deflect. Most of us have known this cindy for three years now. She is back to her former self...which is not pretty.

 

[little_miss_smart]

No they can't. The state will have the last word.

I love this ^^^^^^ :woohoo:

 

[Nova]

If anyone has doubt after today's testimony of cindy's, it is not reasonable doubt. It falls heavily on unreasonable in its entirety

I don't doubt that CA lied in an attempt to save her daughter, but that might just mean CA thinks the trial is going badly; it doesn't prove KC killed Caylee.

I don't see how CA "testilying" helps those who have doubts about the cause of death.

 

[Whisperer]

Yorkies munching on bamboo and an eleven yr old stain in the trunk the size of gas can is ridiculous.

She never searched for dogs eating bamboo buy went for the chlorophyll. I thought it was casey up there...my God! They are enmeshed!

Now GA used to detail out cars and they both are cleaning nuts to the max. He would never have allowed that stain to sit in that car for more than a day. He is OCD about all the cars in his family and spends his weekends cleaning and detailing them out.

I refuse to fall for any of the garbage cindy is spilling. Baez looked thrilled and was giggling to himself when LDB was firing back. ICA was annoyed at LDB (what else is new?) and said "Wow!" when LDB spoke of cindy's meds. Her meds are something cindy likes to use as an excuse. Cindy is the only one I know who gets meds that improve her long term memory. I guess she is special.

I say the only thing that will come of today is the jury should see through cindy (she is transparent) and casey will be sentenced on Murder I with a good possibility of receiving the DP...all thanks to cindy.

 

[Nali87]

I can't really speak for "people", but my guess is many are bothered by the inability of the State to prove an exact cause of death. (In general, the longer a body goes undiscovered, the more difficult the State's case becomes.)

I agree the 31 days of partying and the decomp odor are powerful evidence that Casey was concealing something, but what?

The 12 jurors have to agree to convict KC on the same charge of murder or manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. (I'm assuming the charges of lying to police are a given.) If some are adamant that KC premeditated the murder of Caylee while others think it was an accident due to negligence, there may be a problem.

(In another discussion katydid23 argued that jurors will be likely to horsetrade rather than declare a hung jury, and time may prove her right. They aren't supposed to do so, but these jurors know the whole world is watching. They won't want to announce they can't agree.)

They don't have to prove an exact cause of death though. It obviously wouldn't hurt, but it's not a requirement for a guilty verdict. And I'm sure the jury will be instructed to that as well.

Casey shouldn't get off because of the fact that she threw the body away in the woods where it decomposed so badly that there was nothing left to do an autopsy on.

I think it would be different in a case where you had a recently deceased body that you could do an autopsy on, of for example and old billionaire with spoiled children that hated him, that passed away under suspicious circumstances, but no cause of death could be determined (untraceable poison or whatever).

But in a case where the body (because the killer got rid of it, throwing it in the woods, which shows guilt) is skeletonized in such a way that doing an autopsy is impossible, then in my opinion it's not reasonable to expect a cause of death. I am hopeful that the jury will deliberate over all the circumstancial evidence and reach a verdict. When you take it all into account - From Casey's "Surprise surprise" uncaring voice when Cindy mentioned death by drowning, to her behaviour during those 31 days to the fact that Caylee's body was found in the woods (come on, who would rather get in trouble for throwing away a body than reporting an accident?) there's only one logical conclusion. She did it.

The only "mistake" the state did in this case, in my opinion, is that they've not anticipated how Cindy would turn from a grieving grandmother into a delusional defender of the nutcase that is Casey.

 

[pipkins]

I totally understand where you maybe coming from when it comes to those doubts. Some times I think for me they are related to the knot in your stomach that twists tighter sometimes because I'm examining this case six ways to sunday?

I guess kinda like worrying that something horrible, yet improbable will happen to a loved one who is flying and I hear there is a blizzard where they are going? When I've done that its cuz I care about the loved one, not because statistics say it is common occurence? I don't think statistics support that. I realize that so the brain spaz is very temporary. YKWIM?

IMO that doesn't concern me much at times because people on WS digest information much differently than the general public and quite possibly jurors do. We can see where the prosecution is vulnerable even when others won't because of how we look at the evidence?

But that is not always my reaction sometimes I worry because the jurors aren't processing info like WSers, ya know? Like how we evaluate scientific opinions based on the method the expert used to come to that conclusion, the experience of said expert etc. etc.

I get scared when I see that the public seems to not use that criteria to evaluate an expert. Are the jurors going to do that?

I just go up and down.

My friend says that I go until I have analysis paralysis and by brain just can't take it anymore . My boyfriend is a massive goof ball, its one of the reasons I love him when he sees me like this he does a massive comic intervention. He is taping SNLs that I haven't seen for this very purpose. Not that he needs to, he seriously is funny on his own.

I know exactly what you mean - your probably like me go through life on your instincts, feelings and knowing whats right and wrong instinctively. If what you mean is that sometimes the witnesses (especially experts) OVER explain things and lose the point I'm totally with you on that side. I glaze over and just want them to finish and tell me what they found. The prosecution usually simplify this at the end for me but not always and I worry sometimes that the jurors will 'blank out' just like me

Many years ago I did a sales training course that dealt with the different personalities and how we 'buy' into stuff being said when buying a product and our ultimate decision processess (remember the Prosecution and defense are both 'selling' their side to the jury)

Some people buy into to emotion (me), some to no nonsense facts, some to visual aids and some to audio. Im trying to simplify it but the jury will be made up of a mixture of these personalities and when deliberations start the ones who love facts will interact with the ones who use emotions and will each input their views on the others.

I think the Prosecution has covered everybody on the jury, they have presented facts, pictures, audio and emotion.

 

[Whisperer]

I don't doubt that CA lied in an attempt to save her daughter, but that might just mean CA thinks the trial is going badly; it doesn't prove KC killed Caylee.

I don't see how CA "testilying" helps those who have doubts about the cause of death.

We do not need a cause of death. We have a maner of death...which is one of four:

1. accidental
2. suicidal
3. natural causes
4. homicide

The first three have been ruled out. NO ONE called any agency and reported an accident. Caylee did not kill herself. She did not die of natural causes.

The ship has sailed for accident. It is too late. The defense had three years to state it was an accident. They didn't. And because they didnt, that door is shut.

Homicide has to be concluded.

 

[aeneas1]

given the insurmountable evidence in this case, it was over before it ever started with the only thing remaining to be seen is how many decades casey will spend behind bars, or if she will be put to death. nothing has changed, she's toast. in fact this trial strikes me as a post-trial sentencing proceeding, with the state and defendant presenting arguments for or against the severity of the penalty, including cindy doing her part as well.

 

[Nali87]

We do not need a cause of death. We have a maner of death...which is one of four:

1. accidental
2. sucicidal
3. natural causes
4. homicide

The first three have been ruled out. NO ONE called any agency and reported an accident. Caylee did not kill herself. She did not die of natural causes.

The ship has sailed for accident. It is too late. The defense had three years to state it was an accident. They didn't. And because they didnt, that door is shut.

:rocker:

If you find your child apparently dead in the pool, what do you do?
a) try to save her life, give her CPR, drive her to the hospital
b) call an ambulance, call 911
c) put ducttape on your child, wrap her around in a blanket, put her in garbage bags, put her in the trunk of your car

I don't believe the Casey panicked excuse either. This was a woman who talked as if she didn't have a care in the world to the 911 operator. A woman who remained calm while being interrogated by the police. Who smiled when placed in handcuffs. Casey doesn't panic.

 

[Whisperer]

I think casey smothered/taped her in bed that night (casey's room). Caylee sleeps with her blanket in there. ICA wrapped her in it and put her in the trunk till GA left for work. She wasn't bagged right away, thus accounting for the stain.

I hope that the logical ones on the jury can help the emotional ones see the light. Emotional based people can be stubborn. I hope they aren't in this case.

The defense has NOT created reasonable doubt.

 

[Nali87]

I think casey smothered her in bed that night (casey's room). Caylee keeps her blanket in there. She wrapped her in it and put her in the trunk till GA left for work.

I hope that the logical ones on the jury can help the emotional ones see the light. Emotional based people can be stubborn. I hope they aren't in this case.

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.

 

[Nova]

They don't have to prove an exact cause of death though. It obviously wouldn't hurt, but it's not a requirement for a guilty verdict. And I'm sure the jury will be instructed to that as well.

Casey shouldn't get off because of the fact that she threw the body away in the woods where it decomposed so badly that there was nothing left to do an autopsy on.

I think it would be different in a case where you had a recently deceased body that you could do an autopsy on, of for example and old billionaire with spoiled children that hated him, that passed away under suspicious circumstances, but no cause of death could be determined (untraceable poison or whatever).

But in a case where the body (because the killer got rid of it, throwing it in the woods, which shows guilt) is skeletonized in such a way that doing an autopsy is impossible, then in my opinion it's not reasonable to expect a cause of death. I am hopeful that the jury will deliberate over all the circumstancial evidence and reach a verdict. When you take it all into account - From Casey's "Surprise surprise" uncaring voice when Cindy mentioned death by drowning, to her behaviour during those 31 days to the fact that Caylee's body was found in the woods (come on, who would rather get in trouble for throwing away a body than reporting an accident?) there's only one logical conclusion. She did it.

The only "mistake" the state did in this case, in my opinion, is that they've not anticipated how Cindy would turn from a grieving grandmother into a delusional defender of the nutcase that is Casey.

You are absolutely right that the prosecution doesn't have to prove cause of death. And jurors can disagree about cause as long as they agree about the relevant charge. (I.e., if you think KC used duct tape while I think she used chloroform, so what? As long as we both think she meets the requirements for 1st degree murder.)

But without that proof, it's easier for a jury to hang on murder v. manslaughter or aggravated child abuse. Look at many of the threads here: you can find posters adamant that KC killed her kid in time to get to Tone's to rent a movie; but you can also find a number of people who think the death was an accident that KC covered up out of fear of her mother.

I'm not sure it was a good idea for the State to hang its hat on duct tape and chloroform, but time will tell. I don't pretend I have a better plan.

 

[Kat]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

Not yet IMHO.

 

[Whisperer]

It is not reasonable to assume this was an accident. KC did not behave as if her child died accidently. I think good hearted people talk themselves into this was an accident because the other possibility is something they can't fathom.

 

[Whisperer]

The only thing that would stop ICA from being convicted on Murder I is a jury member/s that have no idea of the concept of reasonable doubt.

I can't stress enough that this scares the bejezzies out of me because people continually get it confused with "Beyond the shadow of a doubt".