The state does not have to prove beyond a doubt...they have to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Big diff. Barring an eyewitness or the deed caught on tape, there is (almost) always a doubt. The question is whether any doubt is or is not reasonable.

In my personal opinion, the state has already proven to me beyond a REASONABLE doubt that she killed her child. What they have not yet proven is whether it was premeditated murder or whether it was a very stupid mistake gone very wrong. I don't believe for one second that Caylee drowned in the backyard pool. I believe that she was chloroformed, duct tape placed over her mouth, and she died. If duct tape was placed over nose and mouth, premeditated murder. If over mouth only, premeditated murder or stupid mistake. Even if it was a stupid mistake, it was felony child endangerment, which makes any resulting death a felony murder even if it was an accident.

I disagree strongly with PennBF. It is important how we feel regarding Casey's guilt or innocence. TOTV is a "chat" site and we are entitled to express our opinions.

Good points California Girl, I agree.

Did it not occur to you that PennBF might have been referring to the outcome of the trail and not about expressing our opinions? I didn't read anything in Penn's statement that indicated that we didn't have the right to express our opinions on TOTV!

The burden carried by the state in this criminal manner is indeed a heavy one. All the defense has to do is inject just enough of a qustion of guilt to sway a jury. The burden is even heavier in that the cause of death has not actually been determined but implied as the duct tape. Perhaps the State should not have pointed to the tape but left how the death actually occured could have been the tape, drugs, etc.

There is so so much that points to Casey Anthony. It will be interesting to see what the defense puts on in the next few days. Will the defense have some surprises?

Thanks
 

Thanks Skyguy79 as that was my point. It is refreshing to hear opinions but
they should not get confused with the law when it comes to proof. Also, I think in a capital case the state must prove beyond a doubt.
My personal opinion is that they have failed to prove she actually did murder even though I also believe she is one heck of a poor excuse for a mother and human being?
In addition I think the state made a number of errors and that it is reasoneble to assume that if she is convicted it may/will be turned around on appeal. I think the 4th state's attorney in the room was the Judge. He sustained almost every state objection and overruled almost all of the defense
objections. The defense has had a hard enought problem in trying to get her
off, (not that I agree with this) and the Judge would not let them fairly
represent her in the trial.
Please understand this in no way means I think she is innocent.:wave:

Hi PennBF,
I understand your points but "absolute proof" is neither possible nor required in our criminal code. While many people believe that the state must prove a criminal defendent guilty "beyond all doubt", or to an absolute certainty, it just isn't so.

CaliforniaGirl is right that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Murder convictions have been upheld in which the only available evidence was circumstantial.

It is likely that in his "charge" or instructions to the jury, the judge will explain the "reasonable doubt" standard. Sometimes judges instruct the jury that their job is to "return a verdict that speaks the truth".

I haven't followed the details of this trial and don't have a guess as to what the jury will do.

Ground For A Mistrial?
 

Does anyone have any thought on the defense moving for a mistrial based upon the State's Video showing the duct tape super imposed over Caylee's face via photoshop, and then dissolving the facial image down to the recovered skull?

If I understand it correctly, this video also contained an image of the defendant Casey? If this is correct information. Then could the trial be fatally flawed based on an inflammatory visual that would unfairly bias the jury? That is the defense position. They objected to it being shown to the jury but the judge allowed it. Did the judge make a mistake? What say the informal jurors of TOTV?

Guilty?
 

Is she guilty? In my mind I believe so....too many factors that add up to her being guilty. Everyone deserves a defense but did her little girl deserve what she got? Hmmmm.......:rant-rave:

"return a verdict that speaks the truth".

I think that the mother has been a disturbed girl all her life. No real feelings for others at all. Probably born this way. What will she do next?

I wonder the same thing; and I have seen some of this visual on a blog, but am not sure if what I saw is the same form in which it was allowed into evidence, since on tv we don't see alot of the exhibits. In the version that I saw, it was a photo of Caylee and a broading smiling Casey sort of looking down at her; and then the superimposing of a piece of duct tape across Caylee's mouth and change of the face to the skull; all done for the purpose of showing that a single piece of duct tape would be wide enough to cover both Caylee's mouth and nose. I wonder if a court of appeals might not think it was unduly inflammatory and prejudicial (personally, I feel it was) to use this photo with Casey in it, making it look like she is smiling at the ensuing scenario shown about Caylee/duct tape; and I wonder why the Court didn't make them crop Casey out, which could easily have been done; and I wonder why the state didn't want to do this itself; I think the state took a big risk of unnecessarily creating reversible error, which could result in a new trial.

I still haven't made up my mind about Casey's guilt, and won't until her defense is presented, but alot of thought I have been having as the trial has progressed is about the duct tape; and this has been eating at me because of having to try to actually visualize scenarios of what might have happened; and in doing so it forces a look at how a criminal mind might think; which I find upsetting. The idea that there are psychopathic people among us, and that some of them are parents, is terribly disturbing to me; and cases like this force us to confront this.

I initially felt strongly, probably mainly because of my bias that I just don't want to think that a parent could willingly harm their child, that this was an accident of some sort with a poorly conceived coverup gone bad; either a drowning (doubtful) or an accidental over-dose sedating of Caylee with chloroform or some similar agent. Of course, the third possibility, which is the one advanced by the prosecution, is deliberate, premeditated murder using the duct tape, probably after sedating the child, as an instrument of suffocation.

My problem, the more I have thought about the duct tape, is that I have started to think that it doesn't fit very well except with premeditated murder. I wonder what you all think about this, or what I may be missing in my ideas below?

First of all, let's say was a drowning, followed by a panicked decision to make it look like Caylee had been abducted and (in case the body was ever found) murdered by the 'nanny'; then I have problem with someone who was totally innocent of any murderous or abusive tendency or thinking, but who was now in a position of trying to decide how to make it 'look like' a child had been murdered, coming up with the idea "I know what I'll do! I'll put duct tape over her mouth and nose, so they'll think 'the nanny' abducted her and suffocated her using duct tape." It's hard for me to imagine a perfectly innocent person even being able to dream up with that bizarre idea as to how a child could be murdered; and, further appalling to imagine being able to be able complete the physical act of applying duct tape across your drowned child's mouth and nose.

Let's say that, instead, it was a sedating of Caylee with chloroform so that the mother could party with friends; not intending to kill her, though; and that Caylee accidently died from being oversedated. In that case, once the chloroform had been administered and the child was unconscious or on the way to becoming unconscious, was the duct tape applied to Caylee's mouth as a part of the sedating plan? If so, why? - for what purpose? To try to keep the child quiet in case she woke up prior to the mother returning? The problem with that is that even keeping the child's mouth closed wouldn't prevent her from making noise; it might somewhat muffle or lessen the noise, yes; but the child could still be heard - and the child would I think become even more upset, hysterical and noisy if she found her mouth taped; and wouldn't even a small child (she was almost 3 years old), in that situation, try to pull it off, and perhaps injure herself in doing so? Further, wouldn't a reasonable person, knowing that children's noses can become 'stuffy' - especially when they are crying - worry that covering a child's mouth could accidently lead to suffocation? Further, if not intending any harm, I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be reasonable to apply duct tape to the delicate, fragile lips and skin of a 2 year old and then expect to be able to remove the tape without damaging and irritating the child's skin; not to mention how to get it out of her hair (since the remains were found to have the duct tape also in Caylee's hair). So I can't clearly see why the duct tape would fit with the idea of Casey intending to only sedate, but not smother, her child; and I have alot of doubt that she would have duct taped her child's mouth shut just to keep her quiet in case she woke up from being sedated. And, just as above, if the child was oversedated and died just from the sedation alone, and no duct tape was applied until AFTER the 'accidental' death from oversedation (or, for that matter, from any other form of 'accidental' death), then the same problem as explained above in discussing the drowning scenario exists - who but a truly depraved person would even be able to think of/come up with the idea of using duct tape to 'stage' the apparent - but not actual - suffocation murder of a little child? What loving parent could bear to apply the tape, for whatever reason, to their dead child's face?

These problems are weighing on me, as I hate to even accept the thought that anyone - particularly a parent - could have intentionally suffocated a child; but although I am still not sure, nor convinced beyond reasonable doubt, of what happened, I am more than before thinking that when the duct tape was placed, it was never intended to be removed, and that that's also why the tape was partially stuck to the baby's hair, ie, it doesn't matter if it's stuck to the hair if you don't plan to try to remove it.

I feel it is likely that when the body was disposed of, it was believed that it would never be found; maybe it had been poorly buried and then surfaced later. I think that Casey has alot of explaining to try to do.

Still remains to be seen.

I believe she is guilty also. I can't get over that she was the only one available to use the computer on the dates of 3/17 and 3/21 and the searches for chloraform and internal bleeding etc. were done 3 months before the child went missing. The duct tape could have been put on her after death to contain fluids from decomposition. It's just all so gruesome and Casey just sits there adjusting her hair and her tops with no expression during the most explicit testimony. She has no heart!

Not Over Yet
 

Excellent points, Freeda.

I have not made up my mind, either, and don't want to until all is said and done. I do think that Judge Perry will rule tomorrow to take it to jury and I am hoping that he does. That will give her a better shot at a fair trial both in the court of law, as it should, and in the court of public opinion. The one thing I am sure of is that she knows what happened to her daughter.

So far, the prosecution has not come up with anything more than theories. Yes, their lineup of forensics experts has been impressive, but even some of those experts have said that it is not infallible.

The prosecution came up today with supporting documents of work records showing that both Cindy and George were at work at the time the computer searches were done. I wondered why they didn't have documentation as to their status (especially George) for June 16. It could be that they can't until the defense opens the door for that day.

Another thing I can't understand is why Cindy and George are so defiant with Casey's attorneys after stating time after time that their love for her is unconditional. Those people are trying to save their daughter's life.

I still wonder why neither side questioned George further when he testified that when he asked Caylee that morning of the 16th where she was going to go that day she said, "Zanny's". Why has the prosecution not asked George, Cindy, or Lee if Caylee ever talked about Zanny? My boys always talked about their sitter. Everything was about Steele and Pawdad (her name was Mrs. Steele but they just called her Steele and her husband was Pawdad).

Was Caylee often drowsy the next day when Casey had taken her out with her at night? If so, why didn't George or Cindy pick up on it...especially if it happened regularly?

Those were great thoughts about the duct tape and your take on all angles from ante to post-mortem. I agree that the animation was out of line and if the jury sees it the same way, then it could really backfire on the prosecution. It seemed that it was intentionally introduced for its inflammatory value.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution can come up with the "smoking gun" today. So far, they haven't.

My 2 cents

They were asking a tatoo artist about Casey's demeanor in 2008.

HUH?

How many of you can remember who you golfed with on a particular day in 2008 let alone what their demeanor was?

Think of the dozens or maybe even hundreds of people this 'artist' saw in July 2008 . . . I'll go ask the deli girl at Publix what I ordered back then.... yeah right!

The "artists" testimony is that he has known Casey for 7 years, not one day in July of 2008.