Casey Anthony Trial

[SlapShot]

It's "reasonable doubt" ... shadows have nothing to do with it.

Reasonable Doubt ...

If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

If the guy that is on trial for a murder that was committed on a Friday, has a big mole on his chin, and the DA tries to prove that men with moles on their chins are more likely to commit murders on Fridays ... a juror could doubt this evidence and it would be reasonable and the man should be found innocent.

If the guy that is on trial for a murder that was committed on a Friday, has a big mole on his chin, and the DA tries to prove that this man committed that murder by showing a CCTV film of him committing the murder. The defense then says that the film was doctored but does not prove it ... a juror could doubt the film, but that would be an unreasonable doubt and the man should be found guilty.

Grizz ... you forgot to add that the guy didn't report that his wife fell off the boat until a month later when her mother stopped by and demanded to see her.

[grizz441]

Grizz ... you forgot to add that the guy didn't report that his wife fell off the boat until a month later when her mother stopped by and demanded to see her.

Hah exactly. Thanks for the exact definition as well.

With the Casey Anthony case I would say there was "doubt" but it was unreasonable doubt.

[TonyJoey]

Grizz ... you forgot to add that the guy didn't report that his wife fell off the boat until a month later when her mother stopped by and demanded to see her.

Don't try to make parallels between the hypothetical and the actual case. The facts aren't similar. Grizz, the more circumstancial evidence, the closer you get. I would say if she was shot with a bullet from his gun on a trip where they were the only two seen to leave, I would convict.

[TonyJoey]

Hah exactly. Thanks for the exact definition as well.

With the Casey Anthony case I would say there was "doubt" but it was unreasonable doubt.

The doubt was very reasonable. There was nothing to disprove the theory that she drowned. Nothing.

[Jayhawk]

Because several witnesses saw them leave dock together.  They went on a fishing trip, only Jack came back.  We can safely assume she screamed because had she fallen overboard, the boat had no obstructions that would render her unconscious upon hitting the water.  The natural reaction upon falling out of a moving boat is to scream so we can safely assume beyond reasonable doubt this occurred if she did in fact fall overboard.

You're adding details here, how do we know she fell overboard?

[grizz441]

Don't try to make parallels between the hypothetical and the actual case. The facts aren't similar. Grizz, the more circumstancial evidence, the closer you get. I would say if she was shot with a bullet from his gun on a trip where they were the only two seen to leave, I would convict.

You are still making a circumstantial leap of faith.  The point of this conjecture is, circumstantial evidence IS evidence.  You don't need cold hard evidence all the time.  A good blend of both is ideal, or an INSANE amount of circumstantial evidence, as in Casey Anthony's case.

[TonyJoey]

You are still making a circumstantial leap of faith.  The point of this conjecture is, circumstantial evidence IS evidence.  You don't need cold hard evidence all the time.  A good blend of both is ideal, or an INSANE amount of circumstantial evidence, as in Casey Anthony's case.

Like I said, you need a lot of circumstancial evidence to convict. There was no evidence that disproved the theory that she drowned. That's reasonable doubt, especially because she loved to swim, could get to the pool under her own power, and the ladder was up. I'll add my own details to the hypothetical. She was getting bad grades lately and her parents were getting on to her. There is nothing to disprove the theory that she committed suicide.

[grizz441]

The doubt was very reasonable. There was nothing to disprove the theory that she drowned. Nothing.

That theory wasn't even presented in the opening arguments.  The circumstantial proof it was not a drowning was clear as day:

1. Body discarded with duct tape (Accident made to look like a murder)
2. Anthony's parents lying till the end

#2 is incredibly damning.  Had it happened like the defense proposed (last minute hail mary BTW), that would mean that Casey's own parents would rather see their daughter put to death, than be accused of an improper disposal of a body.  A terrible accident that snowballed out of control wouldn't have been taken to the utter extreme like that.  If that truly happened and once ch*it hit the fan, her parents would have owned up to the accident and disposal.  The jury should have been able to see right through the smoke and mirrors with that one.

[SlapShot]

The doubt was very reasonable. There was nothing to disprove the theory that she drowned. Nothing.

The drowning theory was introduced by the defense to raise doubt to the DA's claim of murder via suffocation ... and it worked.

The DA's office can not waste time/energy/resources trying to disprove a defense theory ... the prosecution has their theory and uses all their resources to try to prove it.

The only time the prosecution can try to discredit a theory by the defense is thru cross and then finally rebuttal ... but the majority of their time and resources are spent building a case, not trying to rip apart the defenses case.

Remember, the prosecution puts their case on first. The defense then tries to disprove the prosecution's case or interject their own theories to raise "doubt".

[TonyJoey]

There was a lot of stuff in that swamp, and with a tropical storm through the area, it could have been swept there. Not only that, but people have done weirder things than make accidents look like murders. Furthermore, the only person the duct tape leads to is George. Even more, Roy Kronk said a lot of different things. The white board over the site, the tree over the spot, the skull in the open, then in a bag, and the four month period of waiting to recall it in. Obviously, with his different stories, the scene changed. That makes the whole scene tainted, so we don't know if the duct tape was there in the first place. As to the lying, why would they own up to anything? You said it yourself; they lied throughout. George wouldn't even own up to the affair. With all that, and no evidence that it was even a murder, there is reasonable doubt.

[TonyJoey]

The drowning theory was introduced by the defense to raise doubt to the DA's claim of murder via suffocation ... and it worked.

The DA's office can not waste time/energy/resources trying to disprove a defense theory ... the prosecution has their theory and uses all their resources to try to prove it.

The only time the prosecution can try to discredit a theory by the defense is thru cross and then finally rebuttal ... but the majority of their time and resources are spent building a case, not trying to rip apart the defenses case.

Remember, the prosecution puts their case on first. The defense then tries to disprove the prosecution's case or interject their own theories to raise "doubt".

Exactly. I'm not concerned about excuses of why they didn't disprove it, the bottom line is that it was a viable theory that raised reasonable doubt and was not disproven.

[SlapShot]

Exactly. I'm not concerned about excuses of why they didn't disprove it, the bottom line is that it was a viable theory that raised reasonable doubt and was not disproven.

This is where I disagree.

Personally, when I weigh the two theories, the drowning theory is extremely weak because I fail to believe that people who find their children or grandchildren drowned in a pool will result to duct taping their mouth and nose to make an accident look like a murder and then toss the child/grandchild into a swamp ... that to me is unreasonable to believe ... I would have discarded that theory.

In hindsight tho, the drowning theory was brilliant because it could never be proven one way or the other because there was nothing but bones left of the little girl and you can't prove or disprove drowning without lungs.

[TonyJoey]

The thing is they couldn't prove they even put the duct tape on her. There was no DNA on it of Caylee, much less Casey. Read my last post where I talk about how it may have gotten there and if you can trust it at all.

[grizz441]

In hindsight tho, the drowning theory was brilliant because it could never be proven one way or the other because there was nothing but bones left of the little girl and you can't prove or disprove drowning without lungs.

According to Baez's closing, there is an examiner that can prove drowning occurred based on the bone inside the skull, (I don't recall the exact circumstances), but he also said that it does not mean drowning did not occur if the bone did not demonstrate those characteristics.  side point but I did watch all 4 hours of the defense closing.  

[grizz441]

The thing is they couldn't prove they even put the duct tape on her. There was no DNA on it of Caylee, much less Casey. Read my last post where I talk about how it may have gotten there and if you can trust it at all.

I agree there was no direct evidence.  The circumstantial was overwhelming enough to convict though.