Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[strach304]

The only time that the answer to this question matters is AFTER the rebuttal and the closing statements. imoo

The state said today they only need a day or two for rebuttal. I was hoping for more. The only type motive the state has presented was so she could live a party lifestyle. Why wouldn't they think that if that were the case Casey could've just handed her over to her parents. We know and have plenty of theories but that's the kind of evidence the state has not built a very strong case on. Character assassination is something I can see them not wanting to lay it on too thick but showing this girl cares only about herself, seemingly no conscience, etc. tell a story about what and who Casey Anthony is that may help jurors understand how very capable she is of pulling this whole thing off on her own. There's so much more that they can present and I don't want them to over do it but the state only gets one shot.

 

[strach304]

Going with your speculation that it could have been an accident - Do you have any thoughts as to why the Defense would keep an accident a secret for 3 years, leaving Casey in jail for 3 years?

I hear what you are saying and respect your opinion and I am not going to try to make you think the way I do. After 3 years of reading the released evidence, including watching how the Defense has pointed their finger at numerous different people as the "real person" that killed Caylee - I believe it is 1st degree (premeditated) Murder. And a side note: I am against the Death Penalty...but that doesn't change nor influence my opinion.

I just don't think the state gave it all it's got. No, the defense hasn't created reasonable doubt it's the state.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I just don't think the state gave it all it's got. No, the defense hasn't created reasonable doubt it's the state.

what? not being snippy, just don't understand what you are saying,

 

[New1]

IMO yes. The only things I'm 100% sure of right now are
1. Casey is a liar
2. Caylee's body was in her trunk
3. There was duct tape around Caylee's mouth.

Why was there duct tape on the baby's mouth?

Who put her in Casey's trunk?

Why did someone kill her?

IMO

I have no doubt whatsoever that Casey is a liar.
I believe Caylee's body was in that trunk.
I'm not convinced that there was duct tape around Caylee's mouth. I have reasonable doubt about that part. Here's why: The skull was found outside the bag. One piece of duct tape was found 9 feet away. Where was it originally and how did it end up 9 feet away? If ONE piece of duct tape was not in it's original position, what's to say that the other duct tape stayed put? There was a hurricane and small animal activity which could have blown or scattered the duct tape from it's original position which could have been tied around the top of the canvass bag in order to close it. The plastic bags were tied closed but there was no way to close the canvass bag.

Casey put her body in the trunk.

There is nobody else that would kill Caylee. If it wasn't some kind of accident, Casey killed her to spite Cindy. After all, she admitted to Lee that she is a "spiteful B****."

 

[GeekyGirl]

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that there is a fundamental difference in the way that some of us are looking at this. I believe that in a court of law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and it's up to the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the state proved she is guilty of manslaughter, but fell short on the murder charge. So the question for me is now, can the defense provide reasonable doubt that it wasn't manslaughter? No, I don't feel they have. In my mind, it's a false dilemma to say that if the defense's version of the case isn't true, then the state's version must be. MOO

 

[kaRN]

There is no good reason according to HER, but she is not a behavioral scientist.

Again, I am not a fan of first degree murder when there is no hard evidence. I don't agree with the Scott Peterson verdict either for what it's worth.

No but she studied all of the sub-specialities that comprise Behavioral Science in medical school and then went on to specialize in medicine then pathology and forensics after that.
IMO it's like saying a Neuro-surgeon isn't qualified to tell if a patient has a fever but I'm a Mother and in the group that would agree there is no good reason to put any amount of duct tape over a childs mouth and nose and onto their hair, let alone 3 pieces.

 

[bananarama]

I do not believe the case has raised reasonable doubt at all. The state has a very solid case. Remember, it's not just the forensic evidence but the totality of the evidence.

 

[Queenofwands]

no way

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Actually, I didn't really keep up with the news about this case as it was happening, and I went into the trial without any very firm opinions except that the whole A family seemed really shady. But I'm quite convinced that KC killed her daughter (and that the whole family is beyond shady).

Also, as an actual behavioral scientist, I can't think of a benign/innocent reason to put duct tape on a person's face. Unless they had a gaping wound or something. But children aren't my specialty.

 

[GeekyGirl]

No but she studied all of the sub-specialities that comprise Behavioral Science in medical school and then went on to specialize in medicine then pathology and forensics after that.
IMO it's like saying a Neuro-surgeon isn't qualified to tell if a patient has a fever but I'm a Mother and in the group that would agree there is no good reason to put any amount of duct tape over a childs mouth and nose and onto their hair, let alone 3 pieces.

respectfully, I'm confused by your statement... What does being a mother have to do with anything? I don't think any reasonable person would agree that there is ever a good reason to put duct tape on a child's face, but it was there. So the question becomes was it placed before or after her death. Knowing there's no good reason for it doesn't help me answer that question.

 

[GeekyGirl]

oh you are such a nice person (I mean that) I know that from your response to my post. I, on the other hand, was being somewhat sarcastic....now I feel bad

no worries

 

[kathyn2]

Yes, I do believe the defense has created reasonable doubt. I no longer believe KC will get 1st degree murder. Maybe the lesser charge if the State is lucky. I pray they can somehow ressurect their case but I think there will be a hung jury.

Maybe the State can somehow still prove that big spot in the trunk was decomposition. I don't know. I don't think the jurors believe everything the Anthony's are saying. I don't believe anything they are saying. I pray the State can turn this around. Its like its the Anthonys against the State. Who is going to win???

 

[Who_What_When]

I hate to say it because I really hope she is found guilty but I think the defense is starting to create reasonable doubt and I think it’s only going to get worse from here. I guess this is what should be expected since it's the defense's time up so I’m looking forward to the prosecutions rebuttal case, hopefully they will turn it around.

 

[ZsaZsa]

No.
Not for one second.
The Jury sees right through this pathetic defense team .
I think they show remarkable restraint by not laughing out loud at JB every day..

 

[Nova]

respectfully, I'm confused by your statement... What does being a mother have to do with anything? I don't think any reasonable person would agree that there is ever a good reason to put duct tape on a child's face, but it was there. So the question becomes was it placed before or after her death. Knowing there's no good reason for it doesn't help me answer that question.

Indeed. I really don't understand posters saying it doesn't matter whether the duct tape was applied pre- or post-mortem. The former is premeditated murder, the latter is staging, tampering with evidence (a charge not pending against KC).

To me, it seems to come down to one question: would KC have faked a kidnapping to avoid taking responsibility for an accident? I doubt she would, but has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[mydailyopinions]

Can someone please define reasonable doubt (Anthony style I guess)?

Nothing I have witnessed during this trial from this defense is reasonable.

The only thing that would come close were the photo's today showing Caylee at the door and a "reasonable" person would ask themselves "was Caylee opening the door?" "Did someone go out ahead of Caylee and close the door almost shut to say to her," no you are not coming out this time, but stand right here and watch me, I'll be right back?" Perhaps even "count to 10 and I'll be back?" This photo did not accurately depict what Baez was trying to say. It was a photo that could have been interpreted many different ways, unlike the photos of Caylee's skull lying out in the dump.

Even with the photo, what reasonable person would spend the next 24 hours after a child drowns having sex?
Most neighbors of drowning victims have nightmares, continuous tears falling for the children for days, and they may have only heard the child's laughter a few times.. And Casey has sex?
What reasonable person would try to cover up and drowning and not take the ladder off the pool? Reasonable? Really? I am supposed to believe that all this cover up went on, it was all planned out and some big dummy planned this but forgot to remove the ladder. Yeah, OKAY!

Someone please explain to me Reasonable doubt because where Casey Anthony is concerned, I don't think the phrase even exists?

 

[kathyn2]

Thats true about Caylee getting out the door and into the pool. Cindy was up early and left for work. She testified that Caylee and KC were in KCs bed (didn't she say she looked in on them? whatever, she stated they were in bed). And GA says he was home. Thats why they are using him as a scape goat. I don't think the jury will fall for that 1 bit. There is no proof of that. Just inuendo and the lying KC that said that. If GA was home as they are saying they haven't given any story from KC as to how the kid got out of the house and where was KC all this time and why wasn't she watching the kid? Where was George? Why wasn't he watching her? When did this drowning take place? None of them have answered any of this. Of course, they don't have to prove anything but to really get their case across to the jury KC needs to testify and tell the story.

I think the defense is waiting to get a feeling when they are done if they think KC is likely to be convicted. If they think she will, they may put her on the stand.

 

[Starbucks]

The state has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt.

31 days (or never if it was up to Casey)
bagged and dumped
dead body in trunk
Blockbuster tape
Casey making plans for future without restrictions

These five things alone do it for me.

I don't even need the scientific evidence to convince me that there was a body in the trunk, the witnesses who smelled it convinced me.

I can discount the duct tape and chloroform, toss them due to "conflicting" testimony, and still be convinced. Computer mess, whatever.

I don't know how she did it, and haven't been convinced of that by the state, but she did it. I do believe she was smothered in some way, she died due to not being able to breath.

JMHO!

 

[GeekyGirl]

Can someone please define reasonable doubt (Anthony style I guess)?

Nothing I have witnessed during this trial from this defense is reasonable.

The only thing that would come close were the photo's today showing Caylee at the door and a "reasonable" person would ask themselves "was Caylee opening the door?" "Did someone go out ahead of Caylee and close the door almost shut to say to her," no you are not coming out this time, but stand right here and watch me, I'll be right back?" Perhaps even "count to 10 and I'll be back?" This photo did not accurately depict what Baez was trying to say. It was a photo that could have been interpreted many different ways, unlike the photos of Caylee's skull lying out in the dump.

Even with the photo, what reasonable person would spend the next 24 hours after a child drowns having sex?
Most neighbors of drowning victims have nightmares, continuous tears falling for the children for days, and they may have only heard the child's laughter a few times.. And Casey has sex?
What reasonable person would try to cover up and drowning and not take the ladder off the pool? Reasonable? Really? I am supposed to believe that all this cover up went on, it was all planned out and some big dummy planned this but forgot to remove the ladder. Yeah, OKAY!

Someone please explain to me Reasonable doubt because where Casey Anthony is concerned, I don't think the phrase even exists?

I think there's a difference between asking if anyone's actions in this case are reasonable (IMO there's nothing reasonable about the death of a 2 year old being covered up for over a month and her remains being treated so callously) versus a jurors reasonable doubt over whether the events occurred the way the prosecution or defense proposes they did. Not sure if that helps... As always, MOO.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Indeed. I really don't understand posters saying it doesn't matter whether the duct tape was applied pre- or post-mortem. The former is premeditated murder, the latter is staging, tampering with evidence (a charge not pending against KC).

To me, it seems to come down to one question: would KC have faked a kidnapping to avoid taking responsibility for an accident? I doubt she would, but has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

The thing that makes me think she would do something like faking a kidnapping is, oddly enough, her crazy defense in the face of the death penalty. To me, a logical, rational person would look at the situation and see that the state has a pretty solid case for manslaughter, at minimum, and plead out. The fact that she'd rather roll the dice with her life than admit any culpability makes staging a kidnapping to escape responsibility seem plausible. MOO