The Case Against Casey Anthony - March 2011

The fact that there was no DNA on the tape means nothing as it probably degraded after so many months in water. I doubt that the skull not being opened was significant either they are just trying to find any opening for dispute. Duct tape on the hair then signifys what exactly to him? He is saying that because the duct tape was on the hair it couldnt have been attached to the jaw? I dont see how he concludes that. I dont think Casey had help, the body was double bagged and the duct tape was from her home. Where ever Casey killed Caylee, she used things from her own house to wrap her body and throw her in the woods. Casey wouldnt have had help because she trusted no one but herself.

Right. No DNA was on the duct tape...not even Caylee's...it was washed away. Dr G and another Med. Ex. both said the tape was covering the mouth. The other one also said it was covering the nasal aperatures. Dr G went as far to say that it was wrapped so tightly that it held the mandible in place.
I believe KC di this all on her own. Does Lee know? Did he help her move the body from the trunk to the land? IDK? As one of the Police was quoted as sayin..."Lee knows what he has done". (something to that effect).

I dont think Lee helped her at all with Caylee. I do think Lee knows what she did and Cindy does too.
Im sure she gave them some madeup story about it being an accident and she panicked and they chose to believe her. Remember, Cindy always said "my daughter is not a murderer". She never said she was innocent!

This is sounding to me like it will be up to jurors to decide how they process all of this information.

When they talk about the skull having laid on it's right side I always think it could have been moved a time or two by animals.

When they get these specialists on the stand they have to remember the jury is average folks with average ideas about death and murder.

Going to China and back in their explanations and making the jury set through all of that will not get the jury in eithers favor.

They have to talk "sensible" sceneroes from all the facts "they, the lawyers, hear and read" and then present them to the jury with very brief..proofs of what they say.

Overwhelming a sequestered jury will be..murder.

Also I would feel a whole lot better if LBD was to get some help picking a jury. I can't believe the state choses to "go alone".

Anybody else think this jury is going to be crucial to both sides?

artgal16 wrote:I dont think Lee helped her at all with Caylee. I do think Lee knows what she did and Cindy does too.
Im sure she gave them some madeup story about it being an accident and she panicked and they chose to believe her. Remember, Cindy always said "my daughter is not a murderer". She never said she was innocent!

I haven't been able to make up my mind about just what Lee and Cindy know. They might suspect but knowing, I donno.

Once Casey hooked up with Baez she became smart and pretty much "shut up".

And in my mind Casey is such a liar who could believe anything she says.

I will say this. I am sure Cindy and Lee can exist "thinking" it was an accident.

I dont think Casey had any help in killing her precious baby. She was the only one wanting Caylee dead and gone. The help came after. Caylee didnt mean as much to the family as Casey did.Shortly after the police were called, the cohoerts could have gone to Caylee's gravesite, and tampered after the fact. One things for sure, none of them are trustworthy and would do anything to save Casey.

Ctee...I think they loved and payed soooooo much attention to Caylee and because of that, KC was so jealous of Caylee.
I think now that they have lost Caylee and only have KC they believe what they want to believe and KC is all they have left, therefore, they will lie, etc...for her.

On the worst of worst days, remember the words spoken
Trust no one, only yourself.

I think these words from "Diary of Days" on KC's mySpace page reveal that whatever she did, she did it alone and has not told anyone else the truth about it. She may have told Lee some story about an accident, but I don't think she has told anyone the real truth...JMO

Its highly unlikely that Casey is going to be found innocent. What is more in question is what are the choices the jury will have to convict her of. The defense has no one else who can possibly be held responsible. They can attack how Caylee got into the woods, the scientific evidence, witness credibility, but in the end without Casey testifying (which she will not)
there is no way to explain how Caylee went from her care to someone elses who ultimately could have killed her. There is no way to explain the 31 days Caylee went unreported as missing and that it wasnt Casey who even reported her missing at all. So what are the choices that they will have to find her guilty? In any case she is going to prison, its the just the length of time that is really at stake.

artgal16 wrote:The fact that there was no DNA on the tape means nothing as it probably degraded after so many months in water. I doubt that the skull not being opened was significant either they are just trying to find any opening for dispute. Duct tape on the hair then signifys what exactly to him? He is saying that because the duct tape was on the hair it couldnt have been attached to the jaw? I dont see how he concludes that. I dont think Casey had help, the body was double bagged and the duct tape was from her home. Where ever Casey killed Caylee, she used things from her own house to wrap her body and throw her in the woods. Casey wouldnt have had help because she trusted no one but herself.

BBM

Triple bagged, artgal. In the laundry bag, then a trash bag, then another trash bag. For some reason the extra bag makes it worse in my mind. Dunno why.

HippieChick

I didnt know that it was bagged three times. If the theory is she died in the trunk and was decomposing
in one bag - and that bag became wet with fluids
the triple bagging makes sense.

Anyone seen this? A clipping of the deposition from
Dr G and Cheney Mason at INSESSION?

Orlando, FL – “When did you first become aware of Caylee Anthony?”

“First become aware of her?”

“Let me give you a clue, news media.”

It was an early exchange between Defense Attorney Cheney Mason and Orange County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia, and it set the tone for what was a lengthy interaction.

In Session has acquired defense depositions of some key state witnesses that show what Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, Dorothy Clay Sims, and Ann Finnell may have in mind, for a strategy, to protect their client from a guilty verdict and a possible death penalty.

Dr. Garavaglia a.k.a. “Dr. G” is the medical examiner who ruled Caylee Anthony’s death a homicide. Her deposition is conducted by Mason and Sims. After Sims asks a few questions about Garavaglia’s background in the field of forensics, Mason takes over and begins, almost immediately, to question Garavaglia’s handling of the case.

Mason wants to know why she took over the case from Dr. Gary Utz, who conducted Caylee’s autopsy. Garavaglia responds that while Utz continued to stay active in the case, he was new to the office and she felt it would be better for her to take the lead.

Mason also questions the various experts Garavaglia consulted during the course of her investigation including a bone expert and a toxicologist.

“Once I saw that there was absolutely no soft tissue on the bones, I knew that we were going to have to do some unconventional tests,” Garavaglia says.

Garavaglia had the inside of the skull tested for a routine toxicology test which includes chloroform and valium. She says the tests came back negative but stressed that a negative result means they could not find the residue of the drugs, not that it wasn’t ever there.

The most contentious part of the deposition came when Mason asked Garavaglia how she defines homicide and rules something to be a homicide versus an accidental death.

Mason asks Garavaglia how she would rule on a case similar to Caylee’s in which a child is playing with a dry cleaner bag and suffocates.

Garavaglia says that doesn’t refer to the definition of homicide but rather manner of death.

“The manner of death, as you know, is an opinion. The manner of death is based on circumstances surrounding the death,” Garavaglia says. “The story is this person played with a plastic bag and is dead, but then this person isn’t reported immediately to the hospital or to law enforcement to try to resuscitate…and this personal is found still with duct tape on the face, I would say I would still call that a homicide.”

Mason fires back at this and says Garavaglia called it a homicide because she learned from police and media that the child had not been reported missing for 30 days.

Garavaglia says she would not take anything from media as part of her determination and everything in that determination is from law enforcement and is outlined in her findings.

“Let’s take it another way. Suppose this child drowned in the family swimming pool?” Mason asks.

“We get many cases like that where people are drowned and they always report them because they want them to survive. There’s a chance you could resuscitate that person,” Garavaglia answers. “And so EMS is called and none of those people have duct tape on their face or are dumped in plastic bags in a field.”

Tension seemingly mounts at this point when Mason interjects and asks Garavaglia, “there is no scientific evidence as to the cause of death in this case, true or false?”

Garavaglia refuses to answer the question the way Mason wants, and repeatedly says the cause of death is listed as undetermined.

“This is not my first rodeo. I want a yes or no answer,” Mason pushes.

“No, I don’t answer yes or no,” Garavaglia responds.

Mason starts a line of questioning pertaining as to whether an accidental drowning could have been the cause of Caylee’s death.

“Is there any evidence that tells you this child did not drown?” Mason asks.

“…Based on the fact that I have never seen a drowning nor do I see the reason why a drowning would have duct tape on the lower half of the face, I would say that is evidence itself that there’s no indication that this child would drown and there’s no reason why a child that’s drowned is put in a plastic bag and dumped on the side of the road,” Garavaglia explains.

It’s at this point that Mason segues into asking about the skull when it was found and asks some of the most telling questions – questions that allude to a possible defense theory that evidence may have been mishandling.

After confirming that Garavaglia only examined X-rays and photos of the duct tape on the skull and not the actual duct tape itself, he asks her about those photos. “You don’t think there was any staging of that photograph in your autopsy room after Kronk listed the skull with a stick in the left orbital socket?”

Garavaglia says she does not believe there is any evidence in the photos to suggest that.

Mason’s cross–examination comes to an end and his final question conveys the great deal of doubt the defense has about the investigation of Caylee’s remains by law enforcement and this witness.

“Have you looked at the photographs taken at the scene before the remains were moved?” Mason asks.

“Oh, yes,” Garavaglia assures him.

“Did you not notice that the duct tape in [the] two photographs was in substantially different positions?” Mason asks.

“No, I didn’t notice that…I’ve looked at many photographs at the scene. I didn’t notice that it was appreciably different.”

-Swetha Iyengar, In Session Associate Producer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hummm. So a possible defense would be that Caylee drowned and Casey was so afraid of her parents that she bagged Caylee? Amazing.

Or perhaps Caylee wandered off from Casey and Casey spent the whole month looking for her but little Caylee wandered into that swamp and drowned.

I think those fellows on the BlogTalkRadio show are right. Casey is going to mount quite a defense and if she is reined in, who knows which way it might go.

This trial is going to all about Casey. As always.

You know what just made me sick? In the above article, I never knew that Kronk used a stick in Caylee's eye socket to move her skull. She had the most beautiful brown, doe-like eyes. And her mother did this to her. This is so upsetting. I really do not know if I can bear to watch this trial.

Its ok Caylees spirit was gone -she is free from her mortal remains now, the rest was just a shell as it will be for all of us.

I have never heard where Kronk did that any where. I thought he picked up the bag and the skull rolled out of it? Garavaglia did a wonderful job. I have no doubt she did the right thing taking over in this case. Rest assured all these photographs of Caylee with those big brown eyes and the face of an angel will be shown to the jury. I really believe LE and the State have done a great job in this case....minus Richard Cain.

I know Artgal. It is just so upsetting. There is no bringing her back...ever. Her "mother" had better pay for her sins.
I remember a well-respected blogger on "the other site" researched this case to a "T". She said the afternoon of the 16th there weere bad thunderstorms that went over that part of Fla. during that day, therefore, a drowning couldn't have taken place.
I think she was suffocated with duct tape. However, I was always afraid they would try the accident route, to get her off on less time.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- When Casey Anthony's murder trial begins in May, both sides in the case will try to paint a different picture as to how exactly Anthony's daughter died.

Caylee Anthony's body was found dumped in the woods off of Suburban Drive in December 2008.

Prosecutors claim Caylee was murdered, but an expert for Anthony's defense team paints a very different picture, which could leave room for reasonable doubt.

Veteran attorney and prosecutor Jeff Deen told WESH 2 News the jury could believe either side, based on the evidence that is presented in court. If jurors find both opinions credible, it's a window for reasonable doubt, Deen said. Deen is not connected with the case.

In a report dated March 10, defense expert Dr. Warner Spitz said scientific evidence does not support a finding by Orange County Medial Examiner Dr. Jan Garavaglia that Caylee's cause of death was homicide by undetermined means. Spitz performed a second autopsy on Caylee's remains.

"At the end of the day, that's a push back from the defendant because she's charged with first-degree murder," Deen said.

source [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I guess the defense is going to make the argument
Caylee killed herself. Unbelievable

I bet they will go with accident w/ "ugly coping" afterwards. Reasonable ppl that have followed the case wouldn't buy it, however, others just may. Nobody wants to believe that a "mother" could do that. I have always been afraid that she will serve little time and walk free one day too soon.

There is no way that a jury will think this was an accident. I also dont think ugly coping will work either.
The State has to have a lot up its sleeve to have asked for the death penalty. For it to be an accident, the defense would have to admit that Casey lied about giving Caylee to a Nanny, that she lied about everything and that Caylee died while in her care.
How else could they make the premise it was an accident? A jury isnt going to believe someone who continually lied and has gone to this degree without admitting it was an accident. That is beyond credibility
and a jury isnt going to buy it. If you hear someone lies ALL the time about everything why would you buy
it was an accident at the end?

Dr G is very good at what she does. Plus she is highly respected and admired. The jury will love her and not take to kindly to anyone being to harsh on cross examination. Mason don't have what it takes to discredit Dr G. Neither does Baez.

Heated arguments, insults hurled in Case against Casey
By Adam Longo, Reporter
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:59 PM

ORLANDO --
Heated arguments and personal insults were flying in the Case against Casey.

News 13 uncovered arguments between attorneys that happened during a deposition -- and it was all on the record.

It happened in front of the court reporter and the expert witness.

One exchange happened as a deposition was wrapping up with one of the state's expert witnesses.

The 40 minute Q&A session went like most of the others, uneventful, until the very end.

Assistant State Attorney Linda Drain-Burdick: Either he has questions or he doesn't.

Judge Belvin Perry: Please refresh your memory of the decorum rules.

The attorneys on both sides of the Casey Anthony case were called out by Perry at the most recent court hearing.

The sniping between both sides is nothing new, and the judge took a firm tone in this hearing.

Perry: I'm just going to tell you now, I will not do it.

But in September, both sides traveled to Gainesville to take the deposition of University of Florida scientist Dr. James Jawitz.

The deposition was uneventful until the very end when something set off Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton.

Whatever did happen, we don't know what it was. The court reporter doesn't make reference to it.

Things started to spiral out of control when Ashton says to defense attorney Cheney Mason, "Do you have something to say? I would appreciate it if you would keep your comments, thoughts, feelings to yourself because it is extremely disrespectful of me as a lawyer what you just did."

There was more back and forth and Baez asks Ashton why he is raising his voice.

Baez: Why must you scream in front of everyone, including the witness, who...

Ashton: Because you keep talking over me.

Baez: No one is talking over you. You just screamed. You screamed like a little girl.

Perry: You are all seasoned attorneys and I will not have the back and forth.

The judge clearly illustrated he won't tolerate that happening in his courtroom. Again, though, this deposition was five months ago.

Baez: Sometimes a lawyers' advocacy takes over for his professional judgement.

And this hearing was less than two weeks ago, when Baez tried to clear the air with his counterpart.

Baez: I apologize directly to Mr. Ashton for any personal attacks, personal or private.

And at the end of the Jawitz deposition, Baez said, "I apologize to you for this display of behavior."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That is very interesting, Lisette!! I really don't think that Bozo HAD to say "screamed like a little girl." Give me a break!! He makes me sick!!

JP should be coming to some conclusions this week. I wonder if he will make everyone wait until Friday.

Definition of Homicide:
The killing of one human being by another human being.

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

Other legal defenses to a charge of criminal homicide include insanity, necessity, accident, and intoxication. Some of these defenses may provide an absolute defense to a charge of criminal homicide; some will not. For instance, a successful defense of voluntary intoxication generally will allow an individual to avoid prosecution for a premeditated murder, but typically it
will not allow an individual to escape liability for any lesser charges, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter. As with any defense to a criminal charge, the accused's mental state will be a critical determinant of whether he or she had the requisite intent or mental capacity to commit a criminal homicide
source:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you read the definition above, you will see that what Dr G described about Caylee is correct - it is and was
a homicide. Dr Spitzzzzz can say what he wants, but he knows that under the definition of homicide what Dr G. reported was correct.

Dr. Spitz did not impress me with his report. He seemed to be doing what a lot of defense attorneys do... that is, blow a lot of smoke.

If this has already been posted, please delete. I went back 3 pages and didn't see it.

Attorney: Anthonys Told Him Biological Father Died In Car Crash

POSTED: 6:14 pm EDT March 14, 2011
UPDATED: 10:50 pm EDT March 14, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Followers of the case against Casey Anthony said they still have questions about the identity of Caylee Anthony's biological father.

"That's the one thing that's so heart wrenching -- where the father was," defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.

After Caylee's disappearance, new documents show that an FBI agent requested a rush paternity test on Casey Anthony's brother, Lee Anthony, in 2008.

According to court papers, the FBI agent said Casey Anthony gave him the impression the father could be her brother.

But sources said paternity tests for both Lee Anthony and Casey Anthony's ex-fiancee Jesse Grund's came out negative.

Hornsby said the tests helped remove a cloud of questions about both men.
"This is going to be good for the trial, especially when (Lee Anthony and Grund) are testifying and everybody's thinking that maybe he's the actual father and is just trying to cover it up," Hornsby said.

According to newly released depositions, Caylee Anthony's biological father signed a waiver surrendering his parental rights.

Attorney Paul Anthony Kelley said George and Cindy Anthony, Casey Anthony's parents, came to him for some legal advice.

Kelley said the couple told him that their granddaughter's father "had basically taken off and was out of the picture."

Kelley said he could not recall the biological father's name, but that the Anthonys produced an obituary showing Caylee Anthony's father died in an out-of-state car crash.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Please note that the dna ruled out Lee and Jesse. Nothing said about George. I know that is sick;however, due to the allegations that Casey made, it only stands to reason they would test George's dna for paternity. I wonder WHY they do not mention George. This has always bothered me for some reason. It would explain Why there is no father listed on the birth certificate and why the Anthony's never went after child support. And, the convenient story that the father died soon after Caylee was born is CRAP, IMO. And, even if it were true, what about the other grandparents?

If they tested Lee I believe it rules out George does it not? I would think there is a link to father and son DNA
or I could be completely wrong! I frequenly am according to my siblings!

Not sure, Art...but a very good question.

For Grandfather to Grandson tests,
*About Y-Chromosome tests:
Y-chromosome testing is your least expensive option while obtaining very high accuracy (99.9%+). Think about the father of the child (the son of the Grandfather), if this man is NOT the biological father of his son, then you need know if there is any possibility that the true biological father was not a close relative. (ie, could other possible father be a brother, cousin or other type of close relative to the alledged father?)

If the answer is no, then a Y-chromosome test is a great option. All men have one Y chromosome, it is passed down from Father to Son, woman have no Y-chromosome DNA. Therefore a Grandfather, his son and his 3 grandsons will all have the SAME Y-chromosome DNA

So if George is the grandfather and Lee the son,
they would have the same Y Chromosome DNA
and if Lee tests negative as Caylee's father then
George would as well. At least I think that is what
the above article says about DNA testing

If the story of Caylees father dying in an automobile accident is true he has to have relatives they can test.

Too bad this was never cleared up. My thought was that Casey had no idea who the father was.

The boy that died in the accident was not Caylees father. I believe they established that. Casey just told her mother that - another lie. The thought was it was a one night stand with a married guy but again could be another lie. I wonder if the police asked a lot of the men involved in this case to voluntarily take a DNA test for paternity that were involved with Casey before Tony Lazzaro.

I think the opposite of what everyone else does. I think she knows all too well who the father of caylee is, and she just didnt want anyone else to know. The timing of caylee's conception suggests its someone she hung out with before her party crowd, because everyone states over and over how amy and them were 'new' friends.

I also have a theory about JP chatt. Who is always stated as saying he hated casey. Hated why? no reason? Unlikely. She was quite popular with the male crowd, but not him...so why? I remember reading elsewhere that JP's family is wealthy, and someone stated if caylee had been his then casey would have gone after him for child support, but i dont think this is true. If his family was wealthy 'enough' they could have insisted upon proving casey an unfit mother, taken caylee...and thus she would have gotten no child support herself but actually been made to PAY it to the biological father of her child..and i doubt she would have gone for that. Im just saying, she thrived on the control over caylee. Once her own parents were threatening to take her for themselves she was all about "um, how about no." One could also say she had that fear of the bio father, and thus never would have stated who it was.

I mean, if you were a single 19 year old man would YOU have wanted to settle down with a kid? I bet the father knows who he is and just didnt/doesnt care, because he didnt want to be a father. Esp as much publicity as this case has, someone who knows they slept with casey around the time caylee would have had to have been concieved...the father knows who he is, im convinced. They just dont want anyone to know.

I always wondered about JP because he looked exactly like Caylee! But I thought he was ruled out???

here is a link to a picture of JP and Caylee

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The only reason hes supposedly ruled out is because people claim he didnt even know casey before she knew amy and all of her friends...and he 'hates' casey. He only knew her a short while while so many liked her but he hated her? Idk, sounds like he knew her from somewhere else to me..

And yes, striking features. Its always bugged me how she would look so much like a person that her mother supposedly didnt even know before she was 2 years old....then you have to wonder how Casey even met Amy and then anyhow. Ricardo? How did she meet ricardo. Its funny that the people that 'tie' her to JP Chatt (that caylee looks so much like) are the same people she had to have met through someone else...and they lived with him.

Yes its curious because of all the characters in this drama he looks the most like Caylee. But I still think
he was tested but I cant be sure.

No one could convince me Casey knows who the father is. Drama Queen herself would have told everyone she knew. She was happy to let Jesse to assume responsibilty for Caylee after they broke up. She wanted free money, and a free babysitter from everyone she knew. Why not birth daddy? If he died, why not his parents and extended family.

It amazes me, so many professionals will lie and cheat for that family. When will it end?

She had money from her family, babysitting and such from her family and friends and even jesse's family..there was no reason to involve a birth father. He would have only been an obstacle i bet in casey's eyes. Its possible the guy was kind of so/so about accepting responsibility for a baby at 19, and was forced out by casey cause she claimed if he tried to do anything she'd be after him for child support..any 19 year old trying to support themselves as well as put themselves through college would not want the added responsibility of providing for a baby, almost gaurenteed.

Who is JP Chatt?

"No one has ever clarified why he did not like Casey. JP Chatt also supposedly stated that when Casey was in one of the homes that he owns, she is not allowed into the bedrooms. It's all very strange, IMO."

Bada bing, found what i was looking for!

JP was at Caylee's 2nd birthday party in 07, before casey dated Ricardo in 08

"Ok, I just listened to the /25/08 LE interview of Ricardo. He stated that he had met Casey at a party at Amy's house in June, 2007. He stated that he did not meet Caylee until January, 2008 at Troy's barbeque party. So, with JP attending Caylee's August 9,2007 birthday party, JP had met Caylee before Ricardo did. "

Also, artgal, he has NOT been tested, ever. Every where you go with his name the internet screams that he needs to be tested cause of the resemblance, but not once has anyone said he WAS tested. its also not in any docs.

I think they said JP is Puerto Rican as I recall - anyone know about this? Well, if he hasnt been tested, it might be because he refused to be. I would imagine
that LE asked a lot of the guys Casey knew to be tested
but it would have to be voluntary I would presume.

however, you also have this guy Ryan that looks alot like her as well IMO...and he had been friends with casey since she was 4 or 5 herself. George wishes she had married him or something, so he fits with my theory that it was someone she met before she met amy and her crowd. If its not JP i'd say hes the best guess.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

However its really weird that JP claimed he hated casey, yet was at Caylee's 2nd birthday party...

Wow, he looks like her as well! She was so cute

artgal16 wrote:I think they said JP is Puerto Rican as I recall - anyone know about this? Well, if he hasnt been tested, it might be because he refused to be. I would imagine
that LE asked a lot of the guys Casey knew to be tested
but it would have to be voluntary I would presume.

Yep! he is PR. A wealthy PR.

People can go on and on all they want about how casey would have gone after his money, but if she threatened it, and his retort was something along the lines of "if anyone finds out about this including my family and i have to be in this childs life, i will take her away so fast you wont know what hit you just to ensure i dont have to pay you a dime"

Its never said how wealthy his family is, but with the right kind of money and influence a court would definitely side with the father in a custody hearing, if the mother was not as stable/self sufficient...in casey's case, mentally stable.

And yes art, she does look alot like ryan too. Especially that nose. And the eyes.

All of Caseys life was a mystery in many ways. Her professing work and not doing so - what did she do all day? Her having a child and not admitting it for 7 months - her never really telling the truth about Caylees father - just one thing after another, a life built on lies.

Casey never wanted Caylee. She had to steal money, from Cindy Shirley even her friends. She had no babysitter and ended up having to stay home or take Caylee out with her. Tony didnt want a child.

SHe had evey reason to have paternal involvement, unless she didnt know who the father was which was more embarrassing for her, so it was easy enough to tell people that he was dead.

Definition of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

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.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

source:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]