CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.

[Yeoman Randi]

Well, against all of my hopes (and millions of others, im sure) she will NOT be testifying.

Next comes the prosecution's rebuttal. I hope they tear apart the defense.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I agree with DIGITS that the burden of proof has largely, if not legally, shifted. If they tell a whole new story as fact they should be able to proove it

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Therefore, in my mind anyway, any assessment of "reasonable doubt" must necessarily include an assessment of the truth of her version of the story.

That doesn't, in fact, shift the burden of proof. But sure, the jury can convict Anthony regardless of whether the state meets its burden of proof - if they're so inclined. Someone has to pay, after all. But I'm still kind of partial to the idea that if you're proposing to execute someone, you ought to be able to prove that they're guilty of the crime.

 

[1001001]

Therefore, in my mind anyway, any assessment of "reasonable doubt" must necessarily include an assessment of the truth of her version of the story.

That doesn't, in fact, shift the burden of proof. But sure, the jury can convict Anthony regardless of whether the state meets its burden of proof - if they're so inclined. Someone has to pay, after all. But I'm still kind of partial to the idea that if you're proposing to execute someone, you ought to be able to prove that they're guilty of the crime.

Why so snarky?

Everyone agrees that the prosecution must meet it's burden of proof. That's the system.

What I don't agree with is that Casey's story should have no bearing on the concept of "reasonable doubt". It has a lot to do with it, from my point of view.

If her story is completely unbelievable (which it is), that adds credibility to the prosecution, don't you think? If the DA said Casey murdered her, and Casey's defense was "I didn't murder her, aliens abducted her", wouldn't that factor into the concept of reasonable doubt? Her explanation is about on par with that. The story is simply not believable, and if she's lying, why? The logical, reasonable answer is: to cover up a murder.

Why tell this story at all? Why not just say "I don't know what happened to her"? The answer there of course is that doesn't explain the evidence, especially her not reporting her daughter's disappearance to the police for several weeks.

Circumstantial evidence is not bad evidence. Basically, the prosecution can argue "What other reasonable explanation is there for these events?" Casey has voluntarily offered her explanation, and it is ludicrous.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The story is simply not believable, and if she's lying, why? The logical, reasonable answer is: to cover up a murder.

Which is nothing like evidence that she committed a murder.

Why have various members of her family changed their stories, been uncooperative, and possibly lied at various times during the investigation?

The logical, reasonable answer is: to hide something. To cover up facts about the death. Or to protect Casey. Or to protect the father. Or something else.

"Casey is a liar" would be more persuasive if she were the only whackadoodle in the family, telling lies when everyone else in the family and the investigation are paragons of good citizenship. Sadly, this is not the case. Something aint' right with them folks.

Also sadly, what the prosecution also doesn't have is the air-tight forensic case that they gave the impression of going into the trial. Their forensic expert has been contradicted by other credible experts; the circumstances of the discovery of the body - in any area that had been repeatedly searched near the parents house - have been called into question, etc. This is, of course, what trials are for.

And then there's her mother testifying that she was the one who searched for "chloroform" on the Internet rather than Casey...well, she's probably lying, but she's not being charged with murdering anyone. Casey's boyfriends may be lying about allegations of sexual abuse by Casey's father...but they're not being charged with murder. Either Casey's father or the woman he visited and texted with during the search are lying about having/not having an affair and whether or not he told her that Caylee's death was accidental...but the logical conclusion, in either case, does not seem to be that they were involved in the child's death. The guy who discovered the body either lied when he said that he didn't move the child's skull or lied later when he contradicted that on the witness stand, but...well, you know...

"The accused acts guilty" is a pretty sad standard to have to fall back on to justify convicting someone of a capital crime. But of course, juries do and always have, as we've been discovering with dismaying frequency since the advent of DNA evidence. There's no DNA evidence in this case, of course...there's not even sufficient evidence to determine a cause of death.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The story is simply not believable, and if she's lying, why? The logical, reasonable answer is: to cover up a murder.

Which is nothing like evidence that she committed a murder.

Why have various members of her family changed their stories, been uncooperative, and possibly lied at various times during the investigation?

The logical, reasonable answer is: to hide something. To cover up facts about the death. Or to protect Casey. Or to protect the father. Or something else.

"Casey is a liar" would be more persuasive if she were the only whackadoodle in the family, telling lies when everyone else in the family and the investigation are paragons of good citizenship. Sadly, this is not the case. Something aint' right with them folks.

Also sadly, what the prosecution also doesn't have is the air-tight forensic case that they gave the impression of going into the trial. Their forensic expert has been contradicted by other credible experts; the circumstances of the discovery of the body - in any area that had been repeatedly searched near the parents house - have been called into question, etc. This is, of course, what trials are for.

And then there's her mother testifying that she was the one who searched for "chloroform" on the Internet rather than Casey...well, she's probably lying, but she's not being charged with murdering anyone. Casey's boyfriends may be lying about allegations of sexual abuse by Casey's father...but they're not being charged with murder. Either Casey's father or the woman he visited and texted with during the search are lying about having/not having an affair and whether or not he told her that Caylee's death was accidental...but the logical conclusion, in either case, does not seem to be that they were involved in the child's death. The guy who discovered the body either lied when he said that he didn't move the child's skull or lied later when he contradicted that on the witness stand, but...well, you know...

"The accused acts guilty" is a pretty sad standard to have to fall back on to justify convicting someone of a capital crime. But of course, juries do and always have, as we've been discovering with dismaying frequency since the advent of DNA evidence. There's no DNA evidence in this case, of course...there's not even sufficient evidence to determine a cause of death.

It's all true.

Casey Anthony having an unbelievable story as her defense means only that: her defense is weak. It does not in any way strengthen the prosecution's case, which is entirely circumstantial and apparently has a lot of problems. Anthony's defense doesn't have to introduce reasonable doubt because the prosecution's case has plenty of it built-in. "The prosecution's case is circumstantial and full of holes but the defendant's alibi is crazy" does not add up to "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But yeah, somebody's gotta fry, and Anthony "looks guilty" as you say, so she will probably be convicted regardless of the prosecution failing to meet the burden of proof.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There may be the possibility that they'll find her guilty of something less than first-degree murder, which would make sense given the paucity of the evidence. The prosecution was clearly under enormous public pressure to make this a capital case - thank you, Nancy Grace - regardless of the fact that they don't have the evidence for that. But of course people have gone to the gallows on the basis of outrage rather than facts more than a couple of times.

For the record, I think Casey probably killed the kid...but it looks like the prosecution's a long way from having proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[1001001]

The story is simply not believable, and if she's lying, why? The logical, reasonable answer is: to cover up a murder.

Which is nothing like evidence that she committed a murder.

Why have various members of her family changed their stories, been uncooperative, and possibly lied at various times during the investigation?

The logical, reasonable answer is: to hide something. To cover up facts about the death. Or to protect Casey. Or to protect the father. Or something else.

"Casey is a liar" would be more persuasive if she were the only whackadoodle in the family, telling lies when everyone else in the family and the investigation are paragons of good citizenship. Sadly, this is not the case. Something aint' right with them folks.

Also sadly, what the prosecution also doesn't have is the air-tight forensic case that they gave the impression of going into the trial. Their forensic expert has been contradicted by other credible experts; the circumstances of the discovery of the body - in any area that had been repeatedly searched near the parents house - have been called into question, etc. This is, of course, what trials are for.

And then there's her mother testifying that she was the one who searched for "chloroform" on the Internet rather than Casey...well, she's probably lying, but she's not being charged with murdering anyone. Casey's boyfriends may be lying about allegations of sexual abuse by Casey's father...but they're not being charged with murder. Either Casey's father or the woman he visited and texted with during the search are lying about having/not having an affair and whether or not he told her that Caylee's death was accidental...but the logical conclusion, in either case, does not seem to be that they were involved in the child's death. The guy who discovered the body either lied when he said that he didn't move the child's skull or lied later when he contradicted that on the witness stand, but...well, you know...

"The accused acts guilty" is a pretty sad standard to have to fall back on to justify convicting someone of a capital crime. But of course, juries do and always have, as we've been discovering with dismaying frequency since the advent of DNA evidence. There's no DNA evidence in this case, of course...there's not even sufficient evidence to determine a cause of death.

It's all true.

Casey Anthony having an unbelievable story as her defense means only that: her defense is weak.

In this case, it means her defense is false. Not weak, false. Again, the defense is arguing a "factual" set of circumstances. They are making positive assertions about what happened. Doesn't that mean anything?

I will agree that I should have been clearer in stating that I do not believe this in and of itself proves guilt. Only that it would contribute to my decision, were I a juror.

I don't see the case against her as being that weak, but we all have our lenses through which we perceive the world.

Ultimately while I do have strong emotions about the killing of a child (like most people, I would think) ultimately I have no dog in this fight. Whatever happens, happens.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

An interesting side note: this afternoon a 28 year old idiot gave the finger to the prosecutor (WHILE THE JURY WAS IN). He got caught and was fined over $600 and 6 days in jail by Judge Perry.

 

[1001001]

An interesting side note: this afternoon a 28 year old idiot gave the finger to the prosecutor (WHILE THE JURY WAS IN). He got caught and was fined over $600 and 6 days in jail by Judge Perry.

6 days in jail for flipping someone off?!?!

There's your injustice.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

Yep. I guess mostly because the jury was still seated in court. And Perry doesn't fool around. He's really had a pretty good handle on this case, unlike Ito in the OJ trial.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I agree with everything you've said Dennis, but I disagree a bit about the prosecution not having proven certain facts. It is true that the defense called their own experts that attempted to refute the prosecution's, but honestly the prosecution still came out the victors after that testimony. Jeff Ashton really did his job well on those experts, pointing out the obvious flaws in their findings and showing that, in many cases, the defense's experts actually agreed with the prosecution's, they were just using different language to explain themselves. I think that the prosecution proved, at least for me, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a dead body in the back of Casey's car.

Whether or not Cindy searched for the chloroform is relevant to proving pre-meditation, but otherwise says nothing ultimately about who killed the child. Casey could easily have been in the room with her mother and saw what she was searching for, or heard it come up in discussion and it gave her ideas on how to dispose of her daughter. We'll never know.

I think that despite the defense claiming that Roy Kronk was a "morally corrupt" character who moved the body to become rich, Kronk was actually very credible on the witness stand. He seemed like kind of a loser, who may have forgotten some details, but overall it is extremely hard to believe that he moved the body at any point or had anything to do with the murder. Unfortunately the citizen who discovers the body can't always be a great guy with perfect thoughts, actions, and memories.

It's clear that there is dysfunction in the family and that some of them have lied, but none of their lies reach the level of Casey's, and their lies can be reasonably explained by the fact that they want to keep Casey from being executed (even if they think she isn't totally innocent, which at least the father implied yesterday). Casey's lies can't be reasonably explained at all, they are so bizarre and lasted for so long. That in itself is not a reason to find her guilty, but that combined with all of the other evidence seems to point to a body being in the trunk of her car and then dropped off in the woods by her house, disposed of in the same way that the Anthony family disposed of their family pets (wrapped in a blanket, garbage bags, and duct tape) and with a heart sticker on the tape, and a mother who told no one for a month and continued her life as if nothing had happened. Yes, it is all circumstancial, but it really only leaves one possible circumstance in my mind.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, people are going to disagree about the evidence...which is possible to this degree because it's not all that it ought to be. Yeah, the chloroform goes to premeditation, which is central to a capital case. I don't think they've proved murder, and certainly not first degree.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

We've been notified that there is a verdict. Will be made public at 2:15 EST.

 

[DarthTom]

We've been notified that there is a verdict. Will be made public at 2:15 EST.

I suspect they have found her guilty. The real question will be if they have the balls to put the needle in her arm for the crime.

Juries in the US are quick to put the needle in the arm on a male convicted of capital murder and much slower with women.

I'm an equal opportunity guy if there is to be a death penalty.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

did anyone notice Casey mouthing "he didn't do it" during the final State's rebuttal?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

We've been notified that there is a verdict. Will be made public at 2:15 EST.

I suspect they have found her guilty. The real question will be if they have the balls to put the needle in her arm for the crime.

Juries in the US are quick to put the needle in the arm on a male convicted of capital murder and much slower with women.

I'm an equal opportunity guy if there is to be a death penalty.

Yeah, that's really what we need: affirmative action in our capital punishment.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

I suspect the jury will show mercy and give her life, if they have found her guilty. The grandparents lost their precious granddaughter. i don't think the jury will take their daughter away from them.

 

[DarthTom]

Yeah, that's really what we need: affirmative action in our capital punishment.

For the record I'm opposed to capital punishment for a number of reasons but It's a tragedy of justice that women like Susan Smith avoid the DP after murdering her own children but men are often given the needle on much less heinous capital crimes.

There is obviously a double standard in the DP's application in our justice system when it comes to men versus women.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, that's really what we need: affirmative action in our capital punishment.

For the record I'm opposed to capital punishment for a number of reasons but It's a tragedy of justice that women like Susan Smith avoid the DP after murdering her own children but men are often given the needle on much less heinous capital crimes.

There is obviously a double standard in the DP's application in our justice system when it comes to men versus women.

Wait, so let me get this straight...

You're opposed to the death penalty but if we're going to execute people, we should make an effort to execute women as often as men?

What kind of insane position is that?