<p>Baez cannot argue things not supported by evidence. I haven’t watched a lot of the trial but is there any evidence of drowning or of abuse?</p>
<p>Bottom line, the jury needs to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are so many questions unanswered. How did Caylee die? Has that even been established? Who put her body where they it? etc… Casey may end up going free because a jury can’t sentence a the defendant to death if they’re not quite sure she did it. </p>
<p>A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense, not an arbitrary or possible doubt. To convict a criminal defendant, a jury must be persuaded of his or her guilt to a level beyond “apparently” or “probably”. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of proof that law requires. 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.</p>
<p>Just sayin’…</p>
<p>@cartera - there’s no evidence at all about the cause of death, which IMHO is what the defense should have been emphasizing all along. The medical examiner said it was undetermined. The defense could have used this to create some kind of reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>The only evidence of drowning is that Caylee was capable of climbing the ladder to the above ground pool (but was probably not capable of getting the ladder down when it was put away).</p>
<p>Also around the time of Caylee’s disappearance, Cindy Anthony had noticed that the ladder to the pool had been left down (accessible) one day, and that the gate to her backyard was open. She called her husband at work regarding this because it was so unusual. She stated to him that she believed someone had come into the yard and used the pool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. I don’t think the average person understands that and I wonder if the jury truly understands it.</p>
<p>As far as the pool thing…I wonder if Casey left the ladder down and the gate open for a reason…</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter what the cause of death was. There was no doubt she didn’t die from natural causes and just the manner in which she was hidden and the use of the duct tape are evidence of homicide. The jury can decide it is not reasonable to believe, under the circumstances in which she was found and that it was not reported, that she died accidentally. There have been many murder convictions in which the cause of death was not determined. That is often the case when bodies are not found for a long time. The mere act of hiding a body suggests homicide. </p>
<p>There can be plenty of doubt about manner of death but no doubt about homicide.</p>
<p>The big question in my mind is why Casey Anthony didn’t cop to Caylee’s death with a very simple and non-disprovable confession:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my opinion, this is a stupid but not terribly far-fetched scenario. It introduces reasonable doubt, taking murder off the table. Then she’s facing, at worst, a conviction for negligent homicide (depending on how she claims Caylee died), and possibly even lesser charges (neglect, abuse of a corpse, lying to investigators, etc.). Instead of life in prison or possibly the death penalty, she’s facing a few years at most. Not a bad deal for someone who obviously killed her kid.</p>
<p>I hate Casey Anthony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Juries are given a crash course in the rules of trial-by-jury before a criminal case, including the concept of reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Post 406 would have been a more plausible story…either that is really what happened or if she was gonna lie about what happened, that is more plausible than the pool story and her dad’s involvement. </p>
<p>I wonder how it works between client and lawyer representing them. For example, if Casey is lying to her lawyer (the pool story), what can he do except go with her story? He can’t make up his own version of what happened. Her case would have been helped if she in fact shared the truth with her lawyer who could have made it work for her in the best possible light, but if the client lies to their lawyer, not sure how the lawyer can get around the made up version of events the client tells them.</p>
<p>Casey is such a compulsive liar that I can see her lying to her lawyer too, rather than telling the truth and letting the lawyer help her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One version of Post 406 would be the pool story without her dad’s involvement. It’s the dad’s involvement that makes it implausible.</p>
<p>Even though juries are instructed on reasonable doubt, I just wonder if all of the members really get it. I mean, remember OJs trial?</p>
<p>What do you think about the Holloway woman? She appeared more believable to me than George on the subject of their relationship.</p>
<p>If her lawyer is ethical, he’s just presenting the story she told him and trying to support it with (scant) evidence. If he’s unethical, he manipulated her into admitting a version of the story that he felt would sway a jury. Of course, he isn’t supposed to tell the defendant, “I think you should say that this happened.” But he might say, “You’re much less likely to be convicted if you can honestly say that *this, this, *and *this *happened. Would you say that’s what happened?” And if she says, “Why, yes! Yes, that’s exactly what happened,” then he’s accomplished the same thing without breaking the law, technically. And since his communication with his client is privileged, there’s no way to know how they decided on this version of events, anyway.</p>
<p>Ms. Holloway seems like a bit of a train wreck to me. That doesn’t make her a liar, but it makes her a less reliable witness. I’d hate for a case to hinge on her testimony.</p>
<p>The OJ jury cannot be compared to any other jury. There were incompetent prosecutors and an incompetent judge and jurors who engaged in “fact nullification.”</p>
<p>I imagine Casey and her lawyer had a conversation last night in which she wracked her brain to think of anything at all that would point the finger at George. It had to have been Casey who came up with the pet burial stuff. What a reach! He looked so desperately silly going down that road. If I was on the jury I would have had a hard time not rolling my eyes.</p>
<p>I could not figure out where they were going with the pet burial stuff. Had the defense not been asking the questions, I would have thought they were trying to say that Casey put Caylee in a bag and taped her because that is what she had seen done at home with the pets.</p>
<p>^^^
That seems to be their strategy, Cartera. Introduce evidence and lines of questioning that give the prosecution wonderful opportunities to prove their case. Baez must have gone to Bizzaro Law School.</p>
<p>Baez seemed completely out of his league when he was arguing the jury instruction about how the testimony of River Cruz could be considered. I love that name. She could name her kid Booze.</p>
<p>Okay, I kept an open mind and watched as much as I could, with my daughter, and we both think that her father killed the girl. We think Casey acts like an incest survivor and that her father is a creep. </p>
<p>She is obviously awful, but the father is the one who did it, imho.</p>
<p>^^^
Really? Have you been following all of the testimony? Other than their demeanor, what else convinces you of that?</p>
<p>Poetgrl - that really surprises me too. I was hoping to see a “just kidding” after that post. It is scary to me to think that jurors could be thinking the same thing and she could walk.</p>
<p>*Bottom line, the jury needs to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are so many questions unanswered. How did Caylee die? Has that even been established? Who put her body where they it? *</p>
<p>None of that has to be known. People have been found guilty of murder when the body hasn’t even been located.</p>
<p>Scott Peterson is sitting on death row right now and no one knows how he killed his wife, when he did it, where he did it, or why he did it.</p>
<p>*She is obviously awful, but the father is the one who did it, imho. *</p>
<p>Absolutely not. Casey would not have driven around with a dead body in the car FOR DAYS if her dad had killed the child.</p>