Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

New Posts

butterfly1978

butterfly1978

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
10
All of us have read and reread the documents and depo's we know this case like the back of our hands but what if you were a juror and only knew whats been presented. Yes, the defense has done a pretty crappy job in my opinion, and some things have been laughable like " a dog could have buried the bones" but if I was on the jury and only knew what has been presented, Cindy stating that she made the computer searches for chloroform would definately have me thinking. From a jurors point of view I would be like if Cindy made the searches but Casey supposedly killed Caylee with Chloroform, how could that be if Cindy was the one searching what would be the chance...ya know????? I think the defence won some points today in creating doubt, not sure it is reasonable doubt but, doubt regardless... do you think the defense has created reasonable doubt... now rememeber only one person has to doubt. What say you?
 
No, still can't get pass the 31 one days of NOT REPORTING CAYLEE MISSING!!! :loser: All the other is just blah blah blah.. :crazy:
 
Not in my opinion. A mother taking blame for a few computer searches is not enough for reasonable doubt. Now, if it were someone who had nothing to gain then I would give more weight to the testimony, but a mom incredulously screaming I did it, is just a mom being a mom. (An enabling mom, but still a mom) Most of these jurors will see that and dismiss the testimony as not believable.
 
Any doubt the defense team has created is unreasonable, not reasonable doubt- Just hope Juror #4 sees it the same way...:twocents:
 
31 days of lying about the whereabouts of her baby- no doubt at all. The jurors heard this first and they'll hear this last....and it is the strongest truth they know... They heard the callous defendant on video tape.
 
"Just give me Tony's phone number". "All they care about is Caylee".
Nope, no doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
 
I'll reserve opinion on this one until I hear if CM serves up FBI agents and OCSO/LE for breakfast. Tomorrow is gonna be worse for the SA than today was. JMOO
 
I can't speak for the jury but as the case progresses my conviction of her guilt grows stronger and stronger, and my support for a merciful sentence grows weaker and weaker, especially since it had been strongly mitigated by my sympathy for her family. CA's latest testimony has undermined that immeasurably. The more I see of her the more chilling I find her, and the more I believe the case against her. I hope the jury will concur.
 
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.
 
LongtimeMedic said:
I'll reserve opinion on this one until I hear if CM serves up FBI agents and OCSO/LE for breakfast. Tomorrow is gonna be worse for the SA than today was. JMOO
Click to expand...

That ship has sailed. Judge Perry said NO to their testimonies - NOT RELEVANT. They will NOT be testifying.

And, just to add, it made my heart swell to see ICA absolutely livid that they were not allowed in. It's the small stuff in life that makes me happy. :)
 
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.
 
Casey Anthony can give Pinocchio a run for his money. No reasonable doubt, just plain guilty. Lost all respect I was having for Cyndi Anthony. Where is this family in regards for sticking up for Caylee? None to be found.
 
Reasonable doubt as to what? Premeditation? To one or two jurors probably so. And that's all they could hope for.
 
butterfly1978 said:
All of us have read and reread the documents and depo's we know this case like the back of our hands but what if you were a juror and only knew whats been presented. Yes, the defense has done a pretty crappy job in my opinion, and some things have been laughable like " a dog could have buried the bones" but if I was on the jury and only knew what has been presented, Cindy stating that she made the computer searches for chloroform would definately have me thinking. From a jurors point of view I would be like if Cindy made the searches but Casey supposedly killed Caylee with Chloroform, how could that be if Cindy was the one searching what would be the chance...ya know????? I think the defence won some points today in creating doubt, not sure it is reasonable doubt but, doubt regardless... do you think the defense has created reasonable doubt... now rememeber only one person has to doubt. What say you?
Click to expand...

Didn't CA hold it together incredibly well for a woman whose alleged computer search into chloroform may have resulted in her Grandaughters death? WOW!
I guess she and the DT brain trust didn't think through the implications of her lie. Imagine, if CA had never done that search......then maybe Caylee would have died 'of neck breaking' instead, in a staged 'home invasion'.
No, the DT hasn't convinced me of anything except how damaged and dangerous their client is.
 
The defense has done nothing to change my position. Still think Casey is definitely culpable in Caylee's death, still don't think the state has met the burden of proof for murder.
 
The defence did good with the opening statement and raising the questions they did which any jury would reflect on as the trial proceded. The state failed to prove murder. Lucky for them JB was there to help the jury really consider a murder more so then they had after the SA rested their case.

So no he has not made reasonable doubt a factor in this case ,he is pushing it out of the court.

He should have rested when the SA did.
 
Maybe to one juror...eh hem...but the others should be able to hold that one juror to the facts only, lest they be swapped for an alternate.
AZLawyer posted something so brilliantly worded that I have referred to now twice-but I cannot find it to post it verbatim...about how it is reasonable for a jury to believe that one coincidence can happen to a person, but that several coincidences, or aggravating factors, must lead a jury to believe reasonably that the defendant is guilty.
To me, the defense would have to prove a massive conspiracy theory in order to negate the evidence and tesimony that the state presented. They have not done that, IMO. And the state is not done by a stretch, they left so many goodies out that can still come in and not be overkill.
 
The only "reasonable doubt" the defense has raised for me is their competence in this case!!!

IMO Cindy Anthony's testimony today will be impeached (hopefully). I am sure the Prosecution will have Cindy's work records to show she was indeed at work on those specific dates. I am afraid Cindy's "lies" will come back to haunt her in the end.
 
YES!
I reasonably DOUBT any of the Anthonys know how to tell the truth!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 3,833 (members: 209, guests: 3,624)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
3,624
Total visitors
3,833
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,749
Messages
17,958,390
Members
228,602
Latest member
jrak
Back
Top