Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[Mamabear1963]

The only reasonable doubt I have come to is...I sincerely doubt that JB, CM or DS will have a law career after this case is over...

I believe the jury is going to see through this carp including Juror #4. (can I get a jersey with her number after the trial)

 

[aprilraindance]

I agree with most of what you state. Bolded by me #3 they still haven't proven to me. So in my opinion, still alot of reasonable doubt.

If you have reasonable doubt then I wonder how many on the jury have the same feeling as you?
Perhaps it is because we the public were not able to see the photo's of Cayless little remains without the filter. In the verbal description of the duct tape placement it sounds as if the duct tape went around the head 3 times. and was over the jaw... I think seeing the photos in real time with no blur blocking may have the jury feeling differently... ?
I certainly do not think the jury bought the defenses theory that duct tape was placed after the body had become bone in order to hold the jaw in place..
I do think ,with yesterdays witnesses, the defense was able to raise up little doubt flags. Cindy helped them out quite a bit .
I will be very happy when this trial is all over and I hope and pray we will not have to deal with to much in the way of appeals,.. (yeah I know wishful thinking)I hope that justice prevails for Caylee and that the A's questions get the answers they deserve!

 

[Kat]

Yesterday I answered the question of "Has the defense created reasonable doubt?"

with "not yet".

Today I have to answer: Maybe. Possibly. Depends on how each juror interprets this testimony by CA. We shall see.

all JMHO

 

[Turnadot]

I think there's reasonable doubt there for murder 1 and the death penalty, but I don't think KC will be a free woman for a very long time.

 

[RobinBFaboulous]

No. It has never been about the chloroform for me. I couldn't care one whip about it. The two things I cannot get past are the 31 days and the decomp smell. The DT disproves either of those things, then I might start thinking reasonable doubt. And we all know that isn't going to happen.

Ditto... I don't know how she killed her, and for all I know it could have been an accident.... but again NO child should have duct tape on their little face.

The smell was there, CA smelled it, GA smelled it, numerous people smelled it. That sweet child's body decomposed in her mother's trunk.

ICA was conducting her own investigation? At the "Hot Body" contest and the tattoo parlor, and laid up in her boyfriend's bed?

 

[SarahEcho]

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 think you hit the nail on the head for me with that. I don't know for sure what Casey did, I know she did something but what? Covering up an accidental death all the way to snuffing out an innocent child and dragging everyone else along for the ride.

 

[passionflower]

not yet.........

 

[Scamperoo]

Only if you are biased and want there to be reasonable doubt, anyone with half a brain can seen Cindy is a liar and taught her daughter everything she knows.

 

[athy]

i could understand the idea this was an accident but its hard to get past or to understand. why wasn't 911 called at the time? why was it covered up? why was caylee found with duct tape? why wasn't she reported missing? (oh that's right if it was an accident she wasn't really missing.) why all the lies? okay could understand a few lies at the beginning if you were afraid of being held accountable but an accident is just that...an accident. they happen all the time. i don't care how careful and watchful you are with little kids it only takes a minute. but to continue to lie, to continue to add to those lies and to change those lies....uumm not buying it.

 

[Solace]

Anyone think the jury will REMEMBER that Cindy said something happened before KC got arrested in August for the "check fraud charges".

 

[crucibelle]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

REASONABLE DOUBT

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.


- - - - - - - -

Has the Defense created reasonable doubt?

No.

Has the State proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yes.

BBM. I think this is where many people get hung up. They get reasonable doubt mixed up with "absolute certainty". Almost everyone I've seen who has said that the state's case is not convincing enough seem to be expecting "absolute certainty" or "beyond a a shadow of a doubt".

 

[crucibelle]

By the way, I personally do not see it as reasonable that Cindy just happened to be at home on the days those searches were made, when her work records say otherwise. I also do not find it reasonable that on her last depo she couldn't remember if she searched for 'chloroform', yet now she is crystal clear on that. I also DO NOT find it reasonable for her to remember a pop-up from three years ago... especially since this is the first time she has mentioned it. Anyone who thinks these things are reasonable are making a HUGE stretch, IMO.

 

[Anais]

No, no reasonable doubt. Lots of reasonable confusion along with loads of wasted time, and taxpayers money! In fact I have been watching this through the jurors eyes and have to say the SA has done a magnificent job of it. DH doesn't know nearly the info that I do and is certain of her guilt based on testimony he has heard thus far.

I have to say that prior to trial I was concerned about the SAO proving the "premeditation" but have to say that they did fabulous imo. None of what the DT has shown me so far has cleared and doubt as to whom did what and when. ICA is the culprit plain as day. And lastly imho this jury will see right through this families lies. The difference in CA between the initial testimony and her present demeanor will not go unnoticed by the jury!

 

[Cubby]

I don't believe the DT has shown reasonable doubt. Have they shown the family lies? Yes, it still does not explain the decomp in the car or the circumstances of why Caylee was found where and how she was found.

They have demonstrated, imo, this family is not as close as they claim to be. It's not at all unusual for guys, even (some) fathers not to be as into pregnancies as females are.

Lee's tears strike me as grief over missing certain parts of Caylee's short life but nothing more.

 

[GeekyGirl]

BBM. I think this is where many people get hung up. They get reasonable doubt mixed up with "absolute certainty". Almost everyone I've seen who has said that the state's case is not convincing enough seem to be expecting "absolute certainty" or "beyond a a shadow of a doubt".

Kelroy posted this in another thread, and I think it bears repeating since this is what the jurors will hear:

From WESH.com's Ask A Judge column...

The Florida standard jury instructions defining reasonable doubt is as follows: Whenever the words reasonable doubt are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence. If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. -- Judge O.H. Eaton

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28273974/detail.html

 

[grandmaj]

They have shown the family lies. So now why would the jury believe their latest testimony?

31 days Casey partied and did not call police.

 

[crucibelle]

I forgot to mention: I tried to get the hubby interested in this case so I'd have someone to talk about it with, but I was unsuccessful. However, I DID manage to get his step-dad interested. He is in his late 50's and retired. He's been watching the trial and he's seen NOTHING but what has been presented in court, and I have not given him any extra info. He thinks she is guilty as sin. He thinks the defense's opening statement and their theory of what happened is ridiculous.

 

[gxm]

Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

Absolutely not. The only thing the defense has created is an inordinate amount of confusion. They seem he77 bent on turning this trial into a circus in an effort to distract and disorient.

I followed this case for the first couple of months back in 2008 and didn't begin paying attention again until the trial started. I was always open to the idea that Caylee's death was an accident, but the DT has me now convinced it was premeditated murder. I have a hard time believing that anyone would succumb to JB's shell game and yet I'm hoping with all my heart that none of the jury are easy marks.

 

[marlame]

See? Thats another problem I have with this justice system. The jury should have access to ALL the information like we do. If she is so innocent, then why hide anything? If I were a juror and let someone like her go free, and then to see the WHOLE picture afterwards, would PISS me off!

If the "accused" goes free it is because the "state" did not prove it's case. A case should be decided in favor of the party who offers the most sound and compelling arguments based on the law as applied to the facts of the case.

The prosecutor has a duty to present evidence to prove that the accused is guilty of the crime charged. It is the prosecutor's duty to explain to the court what crime was committed and to present evidence to warrant a conviction.

The defense attorney has a duty to argue/present evidence to disprove the allegations.

At the end of the trial if a jury does not convict someone who is truly "guilty"...sadly, the prosecution did not do it's job.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

BBM. I think this is where many people get hung up. They get reasonable doubt mixed up with "absolute certainty". Almost everyone I've seen who has said that the state's case is not convincing enough seem to be expecting "absolute certainty" or "beyond a a shadow of a doubt".

This is a capital murder case, it has to be proved "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt". If I'm wrong please correct me. MOO