Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

GeekyGirl

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
I don't think people would be saying, "Poor thing, it must be MI" if ICA were a man. She can obviously function in society, and she's been examined by AT LEAST three MH professionals who were approved by her own DT. Even if--IF--she is a certifiable sociopath, that doesn't preclude her from standing trial and taking her punishment just like any other person. I have a strong suspicion that most murderers are sociopaths...do we vote to have mercy on them as well and send them to a MH clinic instead? No.

Somehow we, as a society, have gotten the erroneous idea that women, especially mothers, are more noble creatures than the rest of the population. As a mother myself, I can affirm that this is a myth. Mothers are no different than anyone else in their thoughts, emotions, and impulses and are just as capable of committing crimes, even when those involve filicide.

ITA with you. As I've stated, I think she's got a personality disorder, but I don't find that to be any excuse for her actions. IMO she knows right from wrong, she just doesn't care. I'm only interested in it from the angle of trying to piece together her actions based on her past behavior, cause I'm nerdy like that. MOO
 

Mountain_Kat

Heca, Firimar !
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
13,255
Reaction score
35,668
If the jurors told the truth when they said they didn't know all the details, some knew nothing about the case, and they really can be unbiased when it comes to deliberations I believe the defense has created reasonable doubt that some of the jurors could hang their opinion on.

That doesn't mean they will find her not guilty. I just think there might be a few jurors that need convincing but I do think the chance of a hung jury is higher after Baez's closing.

I want to stress I don't think Baez did a great job, I don't think Casey is innocent, I'm just trying to look at it from a juror's point of view.

I can only go by the conclusions I've drawn, as someone who didn't know a great deal about this case prior to the trial. I can not say that I'm convinced that this was a case of premeditated murder, but I don't have a doubt in the world that Caylee died as a result of a crime committed against her, and that that crime was commited by Casey Anthony, and Casey Anthony alone. And that's first degree murder according to FL law.

I wouldn't reccomend the death penalty personally, due to her age and the pain it would cause her parents...but if the real jurors decided to put her to death, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either.

All just MOO.
 

Michael25

New Member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
101
Reaction score
1
No. The Defense went all in and decided to try to come up with alternative theories. They didn't have to do that but IMO by doing what they did they set themselves up for expectations of proof, and they didn't come through with reasonable proof.

Which is why it was ironic that a sub-theme of JB's closing statement was that the burden was on the prosecution. He gave himself and his team less time to focus and devote to the prosecution's evidence because he was busy fumbling around with the death-by-accident and supposed sexual abuse subtext, both of which were as murky as murk gets, right?

When examining the totality of what was presented to them, I would have to bet that most would find there to be no reasonable doubt. There are a few on the fence, I am sure, though. The premeditation/internet research will create enough doubt in some minds.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
No. The Defense went all in and decided to try to come up with alternative theories. They didn't have to do that but IMO by doing what they did they set themselves up for expectations of proof, and they didn't come through with reasonable proof. They also changed their game too many times. The only theory that stood was perhaps an accidental drowning. But I believe the State tied up in a bow the reality and the common sense that whatever her parents are, they loved Caylee and would not have disposed of her with the trash.

You know what I really liked about the Defense's closing statements? I liked that it was surprisingly cleverly put together.
Baez listed one by one, all of their witnesses and how they disputed the Prosecutions's witnesses. Baez stated this clearly and with intense conviction, it was really quite amazing.

But what he "forgot" to mention, that although everyone of his witnesses initially testified against the State's evidence, Jeff Ashton, on cross -either rehabilitated them, or did a fact comparison, so that every single one, every one of them, AGREED with the States conclusions.

And when I hear defense lawyers out there in the media speaking about what a grand job Baez did yesterday, including our very own RH, they forget to mention this glaring fact.

And yes, there is something a little odd about ICA. But the fact of the matter is she knows right from wrong and she understands the consequences of her actions and took steps always to hide her wrongdoings. So despite her Axis II or narcissistic personality or whatever label one chooses to slap on her, she broke the law. She killed her child. People who kill their children or anyone else need to be punished to the full extent of the law. Why is interesting to debate but the fact is she did kill. It really is that simple.

There are many odd or unusual people out there who do not fit into the norm. And many who prey on others because it advances their goals. So the logic of expecting them to behave as you and I would do cannot be used as a ruler to measure them with. Society needs to be protected from those who kill as a way to eradicate those who impede their desires. It really is that simple. Really.

As gitana1 said - it is the totality of the evidence that makes this a capitol murder case. And why she will be convicted and at the very least spend all of her days in a prison to pay for this crime.

This is not a complicated case. It's about the murder of a child. And a mother who committed that murder. And what happened along the way until she was convicted of that crime.
 

ColdDayIn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
445
Reaction score
290
I don't think people would be saying, "Poor thing, it must be MI" if ICA were a man. She can obviously function in society, and she's been examined by AT LEAST three MH professionals who were approved by her own DT. Even if--IF--she is a certifiable sociopath, that doesn't preclude her from standing trial and taking her punishment just like any other person. I have a strong suspicion that most murderers are sociopaths...do we vote to have mercy on them as well and send them to a MH clinic instead? No.

Somehow we, as a society, have gotten the erroneous idea that women, especially mothers, are more noble creatures than the rest of the population. As a mother myself, I can affirm that this is a myth. Mothers are no different than anyone else in their thoughts, emotions, and impulses and are just as capable of committing crimes, even when those involve filicide.

You took the words right out of my mouth *fingers*. I was debating writing this same thing on here almost word for word after I read all of the MI talk.
 

rachelle

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
445
Reaction score
93
I think it is probably pretty clear to the jury that this is a recent story. The state talked alot about the Zanny thing and even how up until 6 wks before the trial CA thought Caylee might still be alive. I think just from hearing that about the 6wks, they can infer that something caused her to change her mind. Also, remember that most of the members of the jury, if not all, HAD heard about the case, just didn't know a bunch of details, and they all had likely only ever heard about Zanny. Also, there was the fact that they brought up that the accident theory had been brought up by CA in a jailhouse tape early on, and how YM was trying to offer up an accident in his questioning of ICA. I'm sure there's more examples, but I can't think of any more right now. HTH!

Thank you! I remember all that now that you put it like that. I was just a little worried that maybe they would think the DT offered this theory up a long time ago and just would think that nobody investigated it properly.

I am a nervous wreck while awaiting the jury's decision...but I have faith that they will reach a verdict of Guilty of 1st degree murder....and at this point I will be satisfied with LWOP.

MOO
 

pinup

New Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
ITA with you. As I've stated, I think she's got a personality disorder, but I don't find that to be any excuse for her actions. IMO she knows right from wrong, she just doesn't care. I'm only interested in it from the angle of trying to piece together her actions based on her past behavior, cause I'm nerdy like that. MOO

I agree with you 100%! It IS fascinating to try and figure out her behavior; I'm into the puzzle aspect of psychology myself! And I also agree with you about axis II disorders for her; I definitely think she'd qualify for NPD or antisocial...or probably both.
 

ColdDayIn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
445
Reaction score
290
Thank you! I remember all that now that you put it like that. I was just a little worried that maybe they would think the DT offered this theory up a long time ago and just would think that nobody investigated it properly.

I am a nervous wreck while awaiting the jury's decision...but I have faith that they will reach a verdict of Guilty of 1st degree murder....and at this point I will be satisfied with LWOP.

MOO

I feel the same way. I would be satisfied with LWOP and I am also a nervous wreck and cannot wait until this is over!!

Also, if you remember, the DT did actually try to say that the state didn't investigate the pool/and drowning theory properly.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
Not exactly the intent of my post, but that's an interesting theory. Do you mean before or after Caylee died?

When she put her in the trunk after she was dead and packed up. Helped keep the bugs at bay also. If ICA had some, what else would she do with it? Just pour it around in case Caylee wasn't actually dead. Might as well - she wouldn't need it anymore. After all what would ICA really know about "dead" ? Somehow I doubt she was the type to check a pulse.

Kind of a "well that's that" gesture. And slammed the trunk shut and forgot about it.
 

GeekyGirl

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
You know what I really liked about the Defense's closing statements? I liked that it was surprisingly cleverly put together.
Baez listed one by one, all of their witnesses and how they disputed the Prosecutions's witnesses. Baez stated this clearly and with intense conviction, it was really quite amazing.

But what he "forgot" to mention, that although everyone of his witnesses initially testified against the State's evidence, Jeff Ashton, on cross -either rehabilitated them, or did a fact comparison, so that every single one, every one of them, AGREED with the States conclusions.

And when I hear defense lawyers out there in the media speaking about what a grand job Baez did yesterday, including our very own RH, they forget to mention this glaring fact.

And yes, there is something a little odd about ICA. But the fact of the matter is she knows right from wrong and she understands the consequences of her actions and took steps always to hide her wrongdoings. So despite her Axis II or narcissistic personality or whatever label one chooses to slap on her, she broke the law. She killed her child. People who kill their children or anyone else need to be punished to the full extent of the law. Why is interesting to debate but the fact is she did kill. It really is that simple.

There are many odd or unusual people out there who do not fit into the norm. And many who prey on others because it advances their goals. So the logic of expecting them to behave as you and I would do cannot be used as a ruler to measure them with. Society needs to be protected from those who kill as a way to eradicate those who impede their desires. It really is that simple. Really.

As gitana1 said - it is the totality of the evidence that makes this a capitol murder case. And why she will be convicted and at the very least spend all of her days in a prison to pay for this crime.

This is not a complicated case. It's about the murder of a child. And a mother who committed that murder. And what happened along the way until she was convicted of that crime.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating in any way shape or form that Casey not be held accountable. She knows right from wrong, and chose herself over the life of her child. There is no excuse for that. I find the reasons for her actions, or lack there of, interesting from an intellectual perspective because I'm intensely curious about how everything works, including the human brain. That's all.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
After the State's rebuttal, I don't feel like there is reasonable doubt anymore.. but you never know what these jurors may be thinking.

One thing I wanted to mention -- I thought it interesting that JA said, today, that ICA chloroformed Caylee before she placed the duct-tape on her, so that Caylee "wouldn't suffer". It's almost like ICA cared, at least enough to not let her suffer. But she didn't care enough NOT to kill her. OR perhaps it was self-serving, as in ICA didn't want to have to SEE Caylee suffer?? Did anyone else catch that?
 

cluciano63

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
41,200
Reaction score
27,187
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating in any way shape or form that Casey not be held accountable. She knows right from wrong, and chose herself over the life of her child. There is no excuse for that. I find the reasons for her actions, or lack there of, interesting from an intellectual perspective because I'm intensely curious about how everything works, including the human brain. That's all.

I gleaned a little more about Casey, and Cindy for that matter, from the book that Diane Fanning wrote about the case, "Mommy's Little Girl". I just read it this weekend in fact and it made me decide that Casey did it for sure, alone and not accidentally.
 

GeekyGirl

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
When she put her in the trunk after she was dead and packed up. Helped keep the bugs at bay also. If ICA had some, what else would she do with it? Just pour it around in case Caylee wasn't actually dead. Might as well - she wouldn't need it anymore. After all what would ICA really know about "dead" ? Somehow I doubt she was the type to check a pulse.

Kind of a "well that's that" gesture. And slammed the trunk shut and forgot about it.

I'm not sure I really understand the logic behind that, but then Casey doesn't really make much sense in the first place. I pretty much still think the chloroform is a red herring, but they've got enough for premeditated with the duct tape and they made a solid case for that in closing.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
Spitz predicts a conviction on a lesser charge and is still rambling on about the 'shoddy' autopsy:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/28239316/detail.html

Someone remind me, what earth shattering revelation about Caylee's death did he find when he opened the skull?

He found dirt. He was confused. Maybe it was because he was still oopsie-ing when he cracked the skull. He confused it with decomp brain matter. He even took a sample.

But he was so sure he never did ask a lab to test it. Or they did test it and he just forgot about the dirt they found.

It's easy to forget about dirt. I've managed to for the length of this trial. I understand.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating in any way shape or form that Casey not be held accountable. She knows right from wrong, and chose herself over the life of her child. There is no excuse for that. I find the reasons for her actions, or lack there of, interesting from an intellectual perspective because I'm intensely curious about how everything works, including the human brain. That's all.

I totally understand. I'm the same way!
 

GeekyGirl

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
After the State's rebuttal, I don't feel like there is reasonable doubt anymore.. but you never know what these jurors may be thinking.

One thing I wanted to mention -- I thought it interesting that JA said, today, that ICA chloroformed Caylee before she placed the duct-tape on her, so that Caylee "wouldn't suffer". It's almost like ICA cared, at least enough to not let her suffer. But she didn't care enough NOT to kill her. OR perhaps it was self-serving, as in ICA didn't want to have to SEE Caylee suffer?? Did anyone else catch that?

I did see that. Again, another reason why the chloroform just makes no sense to me at all. It's excessive and elaborate, and while Casey was elaborate in her lies, she seemed to pretty much take the easy road in every other way. MOO
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure I really understand the logic behind that, but then Casey doesn't really make much sense in the first place. I pretty much still think the chloroform is a red herring, but they've got enough for premeditated with the duct tape and they made a solid case for that in closing.

Gotta explain the high levels of chloroform in the trunk somehow. Chloroform evaporates but doesn't fly. So someone put it there. Every expert said it was there but did not know why. But you have to ask an expert a question to get an answer.

Baez did not say - to his chemists - if you poured a bottle of chloroform in the trunk it would not explain the high levels found in the carpet would it? He didn't dare.
 

Chilly Willy

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
3
After the State's rebuttal, I don't feel like there is reasonable doubt anymore.. but you never know what these jurors may be thinking.

One thing I wanted to mention -- I thought it interesting that JA said, today, that ICA chloroformed Caylee before she placed the duct-tape on her, so that Caylee "wouldn't suffer". It's almost like ICA cared, at least enough to not let her suffer. But she didn't care enough NOT to kill her. OR perhaps it was self-serving, as in ICA didn't want to have to SEE Caylee suffer?? Did anyone else catch that?

That's what I've believed all along. I don't think Casey ever chloroformed Caylee to keep her quiet, she only used chloroform on her one time, when she killed her. Casey didn't want to harm Caylee, she just wanted her gone. Caylee was a burden and was interfering with her love life. It came to a head on the 16th with Casey frantic calls trying to get George or Cindy to babysit so she could go spend the evening with Tony. Casey knocked Caylee out with chloroform and then placed duct tape over her nose and mouth, believing that Caylee wouldn't feel a thing. I hope that's true.
 
Top