Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[wallflower67]

To me, they have not. But I am worried about how the jury sees George. I believe him (except for the affair, which I don't even care about). But he comes off as argumentative and defensive. Some may think he is shifty.

 

[Darkprincess65]

JB almost had me sold a few times with reasonable doubt. But then he'd run out of straws on the floor to pick up and lost me completely. So at this point I have no doubt that no reasonable doubt was created.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

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.

Key buzz word you used there is "negligence". That is what I feel her and everyone that knew is guilty of, because I've seen no proof of a murder. Sorry. Now the whole lot has brought all this on themselves. This case just plain isn't as simple as 'mom kills daughter so mom can party'.

Far too many additional players in the show, all of them lying back and forth, tells me that in spite of who's lies you chose to believe, there are still a bunch of people lying about what really happened to poor Caylee, and what they knew or their involvement in the circumstances. Evidence is lost, evidence is contaminated, evidence is withheld?? An "Iron Clad" case, that does not make.

The mere fact in itself that one PI says they were hired by CA to "follow up" a psychic's lead to go to the exact spot. The exact same spot that RK called about 4 times, the same spot TES and Yuri told people was 'already searched, don't need to bother there'. All within blocks from the home? Really??There have been fewer than ten witnesses on the stand that if I were a juror could honestly sit back and say, wow... that person is telling the truth, and that's pathetic!!

BTW... here in Texas (don't know if it is the same in Florida) but if anyone was with Casey when this "homicide" occurred, they would fall under the accomplice law, and would be charged the same as the actual determined killer is, and... whether they helped or not, they'd still get the needle here, right along with the killer, just because they were there!

Far too many coincidences to be chance... at one point or another, several people are conected by a common thread to this case... just too coincidental to me. That's why I feel True Justice will not be served by only convicting ICA. My hope for the outcome? Mistrial by Hung Jury! That way this case can be retried, and maybe on the next go 'round, all those coincidental players can be brought up on appropriate charges as well. If Only ICA gets convicted, Caylee loses in my book. JMOO

 

[SeeTheLight]

The defense has not succeeded in creating reasonable doubt. But the Anthony's may well have. Not a straightforward answer from one of them. I felt much empathy when GA and CA broke down on the stand. Yet their evasive, overdone non-answers only raised suspicions, By design, I suppose. Could create just enough doubt to result in a hung jury. This time around, anyway.

 

[katydid23]

Key buzz word you used there is "negligence". That is what I feel her and everyone that knew is guilty of, because I've seen no proof of a murder. Sorry. Now the whole lot has brought all this on themselves. This case just plain isn't as simple as 'mom kills daughter so mom can party'.

Far too many additional players in the show, all of them lying back and forth, tells me that in spite of who's lies you chose to believe, there are still a bunch of people lying about what really happened to poor Caylee, and what they knew or their involvement in the circumstances. Evidence is lost, evidence is contaminated, evidence is withheld?? An "Iron Clad" case, that does not make.

The mere fact in itself that one PI says they were hired by CA to "follow up" a psychic's lead to go to the exact spot. The exact same spot that RK called about 4 times, the same spot TES and Yuri told people was 'already searched, don't need to bother there'. All within blocks from the home? Really??There have been fewer than ten witnesses on the stand that if I were a juror could honestly sit back and say, wow... that person is telling the truth, and that's pathetic!!

BTW... here in Texas (don't know if it is the same in Florida) but if anyone was with Casey when this "homicide" occurred, they would fall under the accomplice law, and would be charged the same as the actual determined killer is, and... whether they helped or not, they'd still get the needle here, right along with the killer, just because they were there!

Far too many coincidences to be chance... at one point or another, several people are conected by a common thread to this case... just too coincidental to me. That's why I feel True Justice will not be served by only convicting ICA. My hope for the outcome? Mistrial by Hung Jury! That way this case can be retried, and maybe on the next go 'round, all those coincidental players can be brought up on appropriate charges as well. If Only ICA gets convicted, Caylee loses in my book. JMOO

I believe that Casey did this crime all by herself. And the reason there is so much lying is that this enabling, co-dependent dysfunctional family is going back and forth between trying to help her and trying to stand up for Caylee. It is creating massive confusion, imo. But it does not change the fact that Casey is guilty of aggravated Child Abuse, resulting in DEATH.

The co-inky-dinks are the result of 2 things, imo. ONE, Casey spilled the beans to someone about where the body was. And two, Kronk was trying hard to find the body and knew the neighborhood and knew that was the first wooded area from the Anthony's home. So he was bound to find her at some point because he was determined. I am not going to bash him for following up on what he knew.

There is no way Cindy or George or Lee had anything to do with that precious child's death. They are guilty of trying to mess with evidence or confuse the authorities perhaps. But I think they have paid their dues for that with the horrible way their lives are now.

 

[Chris_Texas]

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?

Respectfully, I do not see how this is relevant. HOW the child was murdered doesn't matter. The Duct tape is unimportant other than that it eliminates ANY question that this was murder, and note that any reasonable doubt was eliminated by ICAs behavior and the location and condition of the body.

Further, as the defense has presented no evidence that this might have been an accident (nor is it a self evident possibility) I do not see how the jury could even consider this. Had ICA testified claiming this, then sure, but no one offered this excuse. No one said, "She died and I panicked and then I didn't know what to do so I kept lying." The defense can hint at this of course, but no more without offering some evidence.

The search for Chloroform is important only in that it demonstrates prior planning. Had she searched for "Homemade Assassins Poisons" or "Good Places to Stab People" it would have shown the same thing, even if she ultimately selected a different method the search alone shows she was plotting.

 

[Chris_Texas]

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.

And why even consider it if the accussed is not offering it as a defense?

 

[goldenlover]

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

Very interesting article. Dr. G needs to read it. That is one reason I am opposed to the death penalty. After seeing this case and some of the reasons people give to believe ICA is guilty of premeditated murder only reinforces my feelings. I just cannot see where they have proven murder in this case.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Very interesting article. Dr. G needs to read it. That is one reason I am opposed to the death penalty. After seeing this case and some of the reasons people give to believe ICA is guilty of premeditated murder only reinforces my feelings. I just cannot see where they have proven murder in this case.

I want to say that I've read where she has actually donated her time to help people who have been falsely accused because of situations like this, but I can't think of the specific articles off the top of my head. I really do think Dr. G is a great ME, and I think her findings were solid given the information she had, I just don't agree that her testimony proved the duct tape was COD. In all fairness, the cases in that article were very different from this situation, but they are a good example of what happens when a conclusion is drawn before the all facts are in evidence. MOO

 

[gxm]

The defense has claimed that Caylee's death was an accidental drowning. They have also claimed that two people found her lifeless body. The state put one of those people on the stand who denied being present at the alleged accidental drowning and denied the accusations of molesting his daughter. The defense put no one on the stand to support their claim(s). They have not offered one shred of evidence to support reasonable doubt. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Sure, they don't have to. But if they can't, or won't, present any evidence to corroborate their story, then why on earth should anyone believe it?

 

[gxm]

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.

Wasn't trying to specifically call you out. I don't like to do that and was trying to wield a broader brush. Sorry if it came across that way. I enjoy your comments even though we don't agree.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Wasn't trying to specifically call you out. I don't like to do that and was trying to wield a broader brush. Sorry if it came across that way. I enjoy your comments even though we don't agree.

Thanks for this. I enjoy your comments too. I'm to the point where I think the healthy thing to do would be to walk away from all this and just go enjoy the wonderful life that I've been blessed with, but I can't seem to do that. I've cried, I've had nightmares, and I've only been watching this for a few weeks. I can not imagine what the people who have been following this since the beginning have gone through. Ultimately, I just want to know the truth of what happened that day, but we probably never will. If I've upset anyone else on here, please know that was never my intent.

 

[morayne]

The only "reasonable doubt" I would accept would be evidence of bruising or cracked ribs that could be attributed to someone performing CPR on a cherished child, which would be a "reasonable" expectation when said child is found "lifeless" in a pool. I've performed CPR on stillborn puppies, FGS.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The only "reasonable doubt" I would accept would be evidence of bruising or cracked ribs that could be attributed to someone performing CPR on a cherished child, which would be a "reasonable" expectation when said child is found "lifeless" in a pool. I've performed CPR on stillborn puppies, FGS.

While I don't think it's probable it was a drowning, or that even if it was, Casey would have done CPR, the lack of bruising or fractures on the ribs isn't reliable evidence that CPR wasn't performed. The bones of children are extremely pliable and much more likely not to break during CPR than those of adults. I point this out only because I've seen people try to explain away fractures caused by child abuse by claiming they occurred during CPR, and that infuriates me. There have multiple studies done on this, for this very reason.

ETA: This is one of the more commonly referenced papers on the topic, it reviewed multiple stuides and came to the conclusion that rib fractures due to CPR are rare in children, and that when they do happen they have distinctive charecteristics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16857258

 

[amelia4203]

I just had a thought and idk if I'm reaching or looking too far into the details, but according to the DT, George was there the day Caylee accidentally drowned and he was the main(or sole) instigator in the cover up and disposal of the remains. Why would George comment on the smell of a dead body at the towing yard if he was in the middle of a dead body cover up? Why would he want to draw attention to himself by mentioning something so damning?

I think both George and Cindy know more than they are saying and they definitely put themselves in this position, but I do not believe that either of them had any idea what happened to Caylee before July 15th or 16th on the day Cindy called 911. I think George was terrified that Casey did something terrible to Caylee before this date but despite their best dysfunctional efforts, they had no legal right to force Casey out of hiding or demand Caylee.

Can you imagine the moment George, or anyone who knew Casey, realized that she could be capable of such an act? I've felt fear like that towards someone and it's terrifying. I do NOT think the Anthony's are being honest but I think the death of Caylee was caused by Casey and it was malicious.
IMHO

 

[GeekyGirl]

I just had a thought and idk if I'm reaching or looking too far into the details, but according to the DT, George was there the day Caylee accidentally drowned and he was the main(or sole) instigator in the cover up and disposal of the remains. Why would George comment on the smell of a dead body at the towing yard if he was in the middle of a dead body cover up? Why would he want to draw attention to himself by mentioning something so damning?

I think both George and Cindy know more than they are saying and they definitely put themselves in this position, but I do not believe that either of them had any idea what happened to Caylee before July 15th or 16th on the day Cindy called 911. I think George was terrified that Casey did something terrible to Caylee before this date but despite their best dysfunctional efforts, they had no legal right to force Casey out of hiding or demand Caylee.

Can you imagine the moment George, or anyone who knew Casey, realized that she could be capable of such an act? I've felt fear like that towards someone and it's terrifying. I do NOT think the Anthony's are being honest but I think the death of Caylee was caused by Casey and it was malicious.
IMHO

I think that's an excellent line of reasoning, and it's exactly why I don't buy the DT's implication that GA was involved.

 

[Kat]

No they didn't. The couple of questions I had in my mind have so far been answered in State's rebuttal.

JMHO

 

[Zoe Bogart]

OMGosh, are you kidding?

The only reasonable doubt I have is "How did JB ever become an attorney?".

He never put up any sort of defense that was in any way related to his outrageous opening statement.

I see no reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who offed Caylee. To be clear, I have no doubt Casey murdered Caylee.

The defense team had nothing to work with because there was nothing proving Casey wasn't the one.

 

[Who_What_When]

Respectfully, I do not see how this is relevant. HOW the child was murdered doesn't matter. The Duct tape is unimportant other than that it eliminates ANY question that this was murder, and note that any reasonable doubt was eliminated by ICAs behavior and the location and condition of the body.

Further, as the defense has presented no evidence that this might have been an accident (nor is it a self evident possibility) I do not see how the jury could even consider this. Had ICA testified claiming this, then sure, but no one offered this excuse. No one said, "She died and I panicked and then I didn't know what to do so I kept lying." The defense can hint at this of course, but no more without offering some evidence.

The search for Chloroform is important only in that it demonstrates prior planning. Had she searched for "Homemade Assassins Poisons" or "Good Places to Stab People" it would have shown the same thing, even if she ultimately selected a different method the search alone shows she was plotting.

I respectfully disagree. It does matter and it is relevant. If you don't believe that she used chloroform or the duct tape to murder her child then you can't convict her of murder. For the jury to come to a guilty verdict of Murder 1 they have to find that the death occurred as a consequence of a crime commited by the defendant and that she actually killed the victim and without knowing how she died how can you do that?

 

[yolorado]

Reasonable doubt from the defense? Not for me, but who knows about the jury. The jury doesn't have three years of Anthony et al info and they may have been inoculated against guilt of the defendant by the accusations of abuse and coverup by George. Say the words, "sexual abuse" or "molestation", and the conversation almost always shifts in that direction whether the accusation is true or not, even if there's not an iota of real proof, none, zero, zip, zilch. Look at the media over the past month. They've talked about sexual abuse as much or more than 31 days, lying to everyone, including the police, never copping to an accident until NOW, 3 yrs later. The defense has been permitted to blame everyone BUT their client, and I worry some of that will stick as "reasonable" doubt.

Prior to the beginning of the trial, I held KC responsible for the death but thought she did not deliberately murder Caylee, that there was some type of negligence or an accident with cover up. After opening statements, I became convinced KC premeditated, planned and executed her child on purpose. If she could do to her parents what she's trying to do through this trial, she is certainly capable of anything.