Let's explore "reasonable doubt." You be the juror. Is Casey Anthony really innocent? I'm trying to understand the perception of "reasonable doubt." I'm amazed at the number of people who have little doubt of their own about Casey's guilt, while giving considerable credence to hypothetical doubts they don't actually share themselves.
My answer would be I think she did it, but could not convict her based on the evidence (that I know of) that was presented at trial. Without a method, location, strong motive or time of death I cannot get beyond a reasonable doubt.
I didn't follow the case closely enough to have an informed decision of my own. It's been interesting to hear people's opinions but basically I'm sticking with the agnostic position on this one.
To clarify. I am not even considering the defense's theories. IMO the prosecution with the lack of any of the four items I mentioned above did not meet it's burden of proof.
How about "know she did it but can't prove it?" It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Let's say I see you stab a clerk with a knife. You hide the knife, you were wearing gloves, etc. you run away, but I saw you do it. The defense says I'm not a credible witness for whatever reasons/character defects they can cherry pick. The killer gets off. I saw you do it - it witnessed it - but the prosecution can't prove it now, so the stabber walks. That's how the system works.
I heard a lawyer on the radio today who said we should get away from guilty/not guilty and switch it instead to proven or not proven.
I think everyone in the family was involved in some way - but, there's no evidence or even a reasonable theory of how she died. How do you expect to convict someone when you can't even tell me how the victim died. I think they went to trial too soon and put all their eggs in one basket.
I don't think the family is involved because of the 31 day period. Her dad was a retired detective. He would know not to wait 31 days before reporting her missing or more to the point the family would make sure to say that Caylee was just missing after that 31 day period. They wouldn't bring up the 31 days. The father also wouldn't have let Casey lie about the baby-sitter since he would know that would come up as a dead end. The 31 day period and the baby-sitter lie is what caused the police to immediately zero in on Casey. I don't think the dad would have made such simple mistakes given his background.
You don't see a conflict between "I think she did it" and "reasonable doubt"? Isn't reasonable doubt a thing that convinces you not to think she did it?
Interesting. What do "time of death" or "location" offer that "she was last seen with her mother, who has been concealing her disappearance for up to a month" doesn't give you? Time of death and location are in fact complete bullshit, unless you're trying to tie them to where someone else was at that very moment. You don't think the fact that the mother threw a virtual blanket of obfuscation over an entire month of time and location is a clue in and of itself?
No, because as a juror I'm legally obligated to base my decision on the evidence presented at the trial only. My thoughts/feelings were not evidence used at the trial. This is most basic requirement of any juror.
Simply put there was no evidence put forth that proves she was dead during that month. As a juror, I need evidence. A time (i mean date not minute) of death would be required. Combine that with no method of death and you have reasonable doubt.
So I guess it's safe to say that as long as there are no witnesses and the body is carefully disposed of, you believe it's impossible to convict someone of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Tell me, if knowing how a victim died -- or when or where -- is such an essential element of proving what happened, why are prosecuters even allowed to bring forth charges without them? Shouldn't we just have a rule that you can't charge anyone with murder without a body, a firm time of death, and a conclusive autopsy? And I have no idea why you think "everyone in the family" must be involved in some way. Are obvious explanations like a single killer working alone just too simple to believe? Only really big conspiracy theories work for you, huh, Jenee?
Very well. So what evidence went into your personal decision that the jury didn't have? What facts do you have that weren't in evidence for them? You're not seriously going to argue that their information was more limited than yours, are you?
And you don't think testimony by the grandmother, of repeated attempts to contact the child which were thwarted by the mother, culminating in outright lies that the child was with a nonexistent person, is "evidence"?
Of course not. As a non juror I don't need evidence. I can use my thought, feelings, gut instincts, etc to determine my beliefs as they effect no one but myself. BTW, frequently the public is exposed to things that jurors, especially sequestered ones are not exposed to or are instructed to disregard. So it can happen.
Indicative yes, proof no. As an example, Jaycee Durgard's family couldn't contact her for 18 years. Did that mean she was dead? Obviously not.
But proving it isn't the juror's responsibility. Ideally, the juror hears the evidence, and then they either "know she did it" or they don't. Of course, if the juror believes, "Yeah, I suppose she could have done it, but not necessarily," then that's doubt. Reasonable doubt, if you ask me. My point is that we have a lot of people who think she did it "except that the state didn't prove it." Well, if you heard the case and the state really didn't prove it, then shouldn't you be just a little less convinced than you are that she did it???
Are you going to suggest that the requirement for a body is a safeguard which kept an innocent person from being convicted of Jaycee's murder? Isn't it possible that the reason nobody was convicted of Jaycee's murder is because nobody was caught lying about her disappearance??? Are we supposed to think it would be a great tragedy if someone, after stonewalling and hindering the search for Jaycee for a month, had gone on to be "wrongly" convicted of her murder?
Based solely on what the prosecution presented, I would have voted "Not Guilty" as well. They simply did present enough, or any really, evidence that the mom killed her kid.
"Reasonable doubt" is not an exception to what you believe. It's supposed to be a factor in your beliefs. You don't get to say "I believe, except for reasonable doubt." You're supposed to say "I don't believe, because of reasonable doubt." Yet most of the people here relying on the "reasonable doubt" defense seem uncharacteristically confident that she did it. "It hasn't been proven," they argue. Really? Then why the fuck do you think she did it???
So all the people who think she did it are just over-reacting and lashing out? Are you saying all that testimony the judge admitted into evidence wasn't evidence???
I think people overestimate the jury's role as analysts. They're supposed to be unbiased listeners who hear the evidence and then decide whether they are convinced by it. Reasonable doubt is a benchmark for jurors to use to determine whether their own misgivings rise to the level of rejecting an otherwise believable case. Reasonable doubt is not some challenge to find fault with the prosecution's case. That challenge occurs when the juror hears and considers the evidence. Once you get to the point of "I think she did it, but..." the state has already proven its case. The reports coming out from this jury indicate that this is exactly what happened. That whole thing about "it made us sick to let her walk" is because the jurors were in fact convinced that she was guilty. I can tell you this -- that will never happen to me. If I'm on the panel and I believe the defendant did it, then I'm holding out for a mistrial. I'm not going to be getting sick to my stomach wishing I hadn't let the guilty bitch go. I'll just have to sleep soundly at night knowing that justice will have to be served at the retrial.
I am suggesting that not being able to contact someone even under suspicious circumstances is not proof of death. Yes, I think convicting someone of murder who did not do it or was not involved in it is a tragedy.
I could not vote to convict of murder when the prosecution did not even prove there was a murder. We know that Caylee died. Was she murdered? Was it an accidental death? Was it natural causes? Don't know. The prosecution didn't say.
A child is dead. The cause of death and time of death are unknown. We don't know if a murder even took place. Let alone who the perpetrator might be. A child is dead that's all we know for certain.
I don't have the full facts of the case, therefore neither I, nor any of the people who suddenly fancy themselves masters of law have any business making declarations of guilt or innocence. There are many people who have little doubt of Casey Anthony's guilt, but they lack access to the evidence that the jury saw. Belief in someone's guilt is not cause enough, because the court demands that the reason for that belief be based in the evidence.
You're not fazed by the mother's apparent lack of concern and bizarre behavior while the child was missing, or the stories she made up about nonexistent people having the child during this time, or her lying to police, or the fact that the child's body was abandoned in a bag with duct tape over her mouth? And all we know for certain, really, is that the child is dead?
Her behavior, while bizarre and abhorrent is not proof of murder. By all accounts her whole family is fucked up. Growing up in a family like that can cause all sorts of issues leading to bizarre and totally inappropriate behavior for a given situation. You keep trying to avoid the fact that juries are instructed to not do what you're doing. I hope you are never on a jury because by your own posts, you'd ignore the law and do whatever you wanted.
