Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[ZsaZsa]

He said there was a "shockingly high" level, but could not quantify it and his partner said that they would not speculate on long it had been there, or what the source of it was... Again, we're coming at this from different angles. You're convinced she's guilty as charged, so your mind will interpret the evidence in the way that best supports your conclusion. I don't mean in a disrespectful way, but that's just how the brain works. I'm convinced she's responsible, but not completely sure she's guilty of murder so my mind picks out the inconsistencies. Neither way is right or wrong, it's just we're wired. MOO

I am convinced she is guilty because of the evidence,not because I am programmed to interpret the evidence to suit a presupposition of guilt.
I do find it incredible,even disingenuous that anyone could believe in her innocence,but again not because that's how my 'brain works' but because of the facts of this case.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Geeky...would you find her guilty of lesser charges like Agg Man?

Absolutely. I really think Caylee was in her care, and Casey is responsible for her death.

 

[miss plum]

Her initial story to LE was that Caylee was kidnapped by the imaginary ZFG, which suggests she may have considered using kidnapping as a way to cover up the death at one point, hence the staging.

Why would ICA stage a kidnapping using duct tape when the initial story went that she had voluntarily handed Caylee over to ZFG in broad daylight? That has never made sense. If there truly had been a ZFG who'd looked after Caylee for years no one would have questioned the child being with her, and Caylee herself would not have realized she'd been kidnapped.

All along, ICA has demonstrated a desire to shut people up if she doesn't like what they're saying. 'Make him stop,' she said pretrial, and from jail she said, 'calling you guys, a waste...a huge waste,' and in court she has shaken her head, and pulled ugly faces, and wanted people silenced, unless they were speaking kindly of her and her feelings. I think the duct tape was used to silence Caylee forever.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I am convinced she is guilty because of the evidence,not because I am programmed to interpret the evidence to suit a presupposition of guilt.
I do find it incredible,even disingenuous that anyone could believe in her innocence,but again not because that's how my 'brain works' but because of the facts of this case.

Perhaps that was a hasty generalization, and I apologize, but can I ask you if you were convinced she was guilty of murder prior to the start of the trial? And for the record, I have never said I thought she was innocent. I actually think she probably did murder Caylee, what I'm questioning is if the state has proved it beyond a reasonable doubt in the courtroom.

 

[ZsaZsa]

The single use of duct tape as a method designed to kill would probably not support aggravated child abuse/felony murder according to AZLawyer, but would more than likely be considered premeditated. There are those of us who are not convinced chloroform was involved. MOO

That's not what AZLawyer said.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141105&highlight=duct+tape&page=14

 

[LongtimeMedic]

IMO, the lack of the 9-1-1 call when your child is severly injured (found floating in the pool) screams child abuse at the very least neglect. If true, Caylee was found in the pool, she may have been able to be saved. Therefore, she died at the hands of her mother not protecting her. Someone mentioned something about her being in the pool so long it was clear she was dead, parapharsing...which is why KC did not call, that alone says KC was not watching her for hours. Definately child abuse/neglect. As a former foster parent, who has seen children taken away for many reasons, I can tell you abuse does not mean buises or physical harm. Severe neglect and lack of caring for a child falls into that category. At least in our state.

Not sure, but I don't think you can use the defenses theory of cause of death (drowning) to support the SAO's charge of murder or neglect/abuse. If you arrive at that conclusion in that fashion, then you have to believe the DT's statement that GA was the one holding the deceased Caylee. jmoo

 

[GeekyGirl]

That's not what AZLawyer said.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141105&highlight=duct+tape&page=14

I asked her that question specifically.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6789131"]Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4 - Page 14 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

ETA: Post number #327 in that thread is her answer

 

[mendz]

i think the defense helped extinguish any possibility of reasonable doubt. when the prosecution rested i thought she would not get a guilty verdict on murder 1 but after the defense and their presentation - they actually took the "reasonable" out of the doubt.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Not sure, but I don't think you can use the defenses theory of cause of death (drowning) to support the SAO's charge of murder or neglect/abuse. If you arrive at that conclusion in that fashion, then you have to believe the DT's statement that GA was the one holding the deceased Caylee. jmoo

I actually disagree with that, if Casey was not taking reasonable precautions to ensure that Caylee was reasonably supervised and did not have access to pool, I think that does meet the definition of negligence. IANAL though, so I could be wrong. Neglect would not support a felony murder charge though.

 

[gxm]

I followed the case for only the first couple of months and did not follow the majority of the drama that occurred between now and August 2008. I was open to the possibility of an accidental death before the trial. But JB's preposterous opening statement moved me into the premeditated column. No one invents such an absurd fiction for their defense unless they are still hiding the truth. The SA presented a solid, factual, evidence-based circumstantial case. The defense presented utter chaos and, more often than not, their witnesses validated the state's case.

There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that ICA killed Caylee with premeditation. It's why ICA didn't want Caylee's body found. It's why her parents are afraid she'll get the DP. It's why CA committed perjury. It's why her defense has no plausible alternative to present and no evidence to verify their ridiculous fiction (unless it involves perjury). It's why ICA won't tell anyone what really happened.

And, yes, I'm an abstract thinker. That's how my brain works. I don't need anyone to tell me how Caylee died or when the duct tape was applied. I can put the puzzle pieces together myself. (Not to get rude but all this "how your brain works" is incredibly insulting and I grow weary of it. Let's nip it in the bud, please.)

 

[Chris_Texas]

Background: I know very VERY little about this case. I have not followed it in the news at ALL. I only began watching the trial during the later part of the defense. Further, I would like to think that I am OBJECTIVE.

I not only do not have a reasonable doubt, I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that ICA planned and carried out this murder. This conclusion is based solely upon Casey's known behavior during her 31 day party, and the testimony and cross of the defense witnesses. IMO

 

[TwiceIrish]

Here's a very interesting read for those in quest of deeper understanding and enhancing their knowledge base. I found it quite apropos considering the DT rested today.

I found this particularly interesting:

"Thogmartin said the charged emotions inevitably triggered by a child's death add another layer of complexity. Forensic pathologists, in his view, can get "caught up in the anger, the emotion, the despair." Their mindset can become prosecutorial, Thogmartin said, until every child death is a "homicide until proven otherwise."

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137454415/the-child-cases-guilty-until-proven-innocent

Blunt force trauma, the worst case some of them have ever seen, being confused with spider bites??

 

[GeekyGirl]

I followed the case for only the first couple of months and did not follow the majority of the drama that occurred between now and August 2008. I was open to the possibility of an accidental death before the trial. But JB's preposterous opening statement moved me into the premeditated column. No one invents such an absurd fiction for their defense unless they are still hiding the truth. The SA presented a solid, factual, evidence-based circumstantial case. The defense presented utter chaos and, more often than not, their witnesses validated the state's case.

There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that ICA killed Caylee with premeditation. It's why ICA didn't want Caylee's body found. It's why her parents are afraid she'll get the DP. It's why CA committed perjury. It's why her defense has no plausible alternative to present and no evidence to verify their ridiculous fiction (unless it involves perjury). It's why ICA won't tell anyone what really happened.

And, yes, I'm an abstract thinker. That's how my brain works. I don't need anyone to tell me how Caylee died or when the duct tape was applied. I can put the puzzle pieces together myself. (Not to get rude but all this "how your brain works" is incredibly insulting and I grow weary of it. Let's nip it in the bud, please.)

I edited and apologized, but confirmation bias is a very real thing, proven in plenty of peer reviewed studies. I wasn't trying to be insulting, just pointing out a psychological phenomenon. I personally grow weary of people insinuating I'm not a reasonable person (not directed at you) can we nip that in that bud too, please?

ETA: I'm sorry, I need to get off of here and go to bed, I'm tired and frustrated and I really don't mean to be snarky. I appreciate your thoughts, and I see where you're coming from.

 

[Who_What_When]

I followed the case for only the first couple of months and did not follow the majority of the drama that occurred between now and August 2008. I was open to the possibility of an accidental death before the trial. But JB's preposterous opening statement moved me into the premeditated column. No one invents such an absurd fiction for their defense unless they are still hiding the truth. The SA presented a solid, factual, evidence-based circumstantial case. The defense presented utter chaos and, more often than not, their witnesses validated the state's case.

There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that ICA killed Caylee with premeditation. It's why ICA didn't want Caylee's body found. It's why her parents are afraid she'll get the DP. It's why CA committed perjury. It's why her defense has no plausible alternative to present and no evidence to verify their ridiculous fiction (unless it involves perjury). It's why ICA won't tell anyone what really happened.

And, yes, I'm an abstract thinker. That's how my brain works. I don't need anyone to tell me how Caylee died or when the duct tape was applied. I can put the puzzle pieces together myself. (Not to get rude but all this "how your brain works" is incredibly insulting and I grow weary of it. Let's nip it in the bud, please.)

Thanks for your thoughts. It's great to hear from someone who hasn't followed the case closely, as your thoughts may be the same as those that are on the jury.

I have a question though...without knowing how she died what would you find her guilty of? Don't get me wrong, I think she is guilty I'm just concerned that the jury won't be able to convict her of Murder 1 without knowing how she died since they have to find that the death occurred as a consequence of a crime and that she actually killed the victim.

 

[Who_What_When]

Background: I know very VERY little about this case. I have not followed it in the news at ALL. I only began watching the trial during the later part of the defense. Further, I would like to think that I am OBJECTIVE.

I not only do not have a reasonable doubt, I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that ICA planned and carried out this murder. This conclusion is based solely upon Casey's known behavior during her 31 day party, and the testimony and cross of the defense witnesses. IMO

It's great to hear opinions from people who haven't followed it closely, especially those who are only going by what they hear during the trial since that's how the jury will decide. Do you believe she used duct tape or chloroform to kill Caylee?

 

[mrsjonnob]

As far-fetched as the accidental drowning/ forced cover-up is, I might have admitted to having a smidgen of reasonable doubt... but her behavior in the hours, day, weeks following the supposed accident don't jive with me. She should have been sad, crying, distressed. Instead she was partying and living it up. She wasn't mourning. She was celebrating. That removes any inkling of doubt in my mind.

 

[katydid23]

Not sure, but I don't think you can use the defenses theory of cause of death (drowning) to support the SAO's charge of murder or neglect/abuse. If you arrive at that conclusion in that fashion, then you have to believe the DT's statement that GA was the one holding the deceased Caylee. jmoo

NO, you do not have to use the DT's statement as any kind of statement of fact. Actually, you are not even ALLOWED to do so because opening statements are not legally accepted as fact, and I do not think Baez will even be allowed to repeat that version of events in his closing. You can only use things that have been shown by evidence during the trial in the closing statements. So that version of events may not even be discussed again.

And the jury does NOT have to come to the same exact conclusions as to HOW they get to their verdict or their final decision. If 10 think it was homicide by duct tape and 2 think it was by chloroform, that is fine for them all to vote guilty. Each one does not have to have identical versions in their minds. If 5 think it was accidental drowning and 7 think it was accidental overdose they can all vote aggravated child abuse or manslaughter. It does not have to be the exact same scenario. And that is one reason the state has not said it was this exact way, because the ME cannot prove it forensically.

 

[uklaw]

Of course the Defense has created reasonable doubt. How could you view the presentation and consider otherwise?

I am reasonably doubting whether or not Jose Baez actually has a law degree or at the very least if he had someone else take his exam for him.

 

[gxm]

Thanks for your thoughts. It's great to hear from someone who hasn't followed the case closely, as your thoughts may be the same as those that are on the jury.

I have a question though...without knowing how she died what would you find her guilty of? Don't get me wrong, I think she is guilty I'm just concerned that the jury won't be able to convict her of Murder 1 without knowing how she died since they have to find that the death occurred as a consequence of a crime and that she actually killed the victim.

If I were on the jury, I could find her guilty of murder 1. I believe the murder was planned and that Caylee died at ICA's hands. I don't need to know how, although it would be nice if ICA finally told the truth (but that's not gonna happen).

I find it unbelievable, but ICA's DT presented some of the most damning evidence. CA's perjury about the web searches was absolute confirmation for me. I believe JB knew she was lying to cover for her daughter. And if CA didn't make those searches, then ICA did. The defense proved that point all on their own. They have no one to blame but themselves if/when ICA is convicted of murder.

 

[kimmera]

Background: I know very VERY little about this case. I have not followed it in the news at ALL. I only began watching the trial during the later part of the defense. Further, I would like to think that I am OBJECTIVE.

I not only do not have a reasonable doubt, I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that ICA planned and carried out this murder. This conclusion is based solely upon Casey's known behavior during her 31 day party, and the testimony and cross of the defense witnesses. IMO

BBM~

I have been following this case from the beginning, and the 31 days of 'YAY!' (thanks again, AZ) has always been the most compelling element of this to me, IMO. Even if none of the jurors had heard this before, I feel certain that this will be just as compelling to them as it was to me.

I am so happy that Dr G was able to testify to that fact that this ALONE is evidence that this was not an accident. Then we have the fact that ICA NEVER actually reported the baby missing, it was her MOM that did. If CA had never reported Caylee missing, I would bet my next paycheck (such as it is) that ICA would have most likely never reported her missing. She was completely over Caylee...

There simply is no rational and reasonable explanation for this, and even her defense team couldn't come up with one after almost three years of preparation. They promised this jury that this outrageous NON-action would be explained, and then they proceeded to do just the opposite of that!

This is a circumstantial case, but one with just enough physical evidence to seal the deal, so to speak. The jury will consider the totality of the evidence and there is no reasonable doubt to be had, IMO. Kudos to the DT for removing ANY doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that ICA murdered her baby WITH premeditation. I feel certain that the jury will feel the same way.

Justice is coming Caylee! :twocents: