PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony trial



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

WindSpirit
07-06-2011, 05:08 AM
Wow, wow, wow. Nobody, including me, has ever said that the American justice system is infallible. I'll repeat the quote I was replying to:


It's really insulting of you to say/imply that this jury got it wrong. [...] Twelve juror didn't get it wrong. What's the implication of the above? "Twelve jurors didn't get it wrong" because twelve jurors couldn't get it wrong.

I'm beginning to think it has to be stated word per word in order for you to believe it. Same with Casey murdering her daughter. Unless there's a tape with Casey murdering her daughter on it, and her own admission after that, nothing would be enough for you to find her guilty.


I truly believe there is no better way to conduct a trial than the current system. Well, that sounds better than reminding people to be thankful we have a democratic and thorough legal system, unlike Italy.


Let's be real. Has every verdict rendered been a just one? No, humans aren't perfect, they're infallible. You mean fallible?


Was the verdict rendered today a just one? Nobody will ever know except Casey Anthony herself. No, only Casey will know what happened to her daughter. The verdict was based on presented evidence, available to anyone, so whether it was just or not is open to everyone's interpretation. (and by just I don't mean legal or valid)


I wasn't putting down the Italian justice system Come on, what you wrote right after that and the "undemocratic and not thorough" implication looks pretty much like putting it down.


Getting back to the verdict itself, it is my personal opinion, and I've stated this many times on this thread already, that there was not sufficient evidence for the homicide charge. The manslaughter charge is also a hefty one. It's hard to deny that Anthony was a terrible mother, and evidently, has some severe medical issues, but again, there was just an utter lack of tangible evidence and I can't justify putting someone away without PROOF, JMHO. The one charge she was convicted of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, is black and white. Not much debate there, she failed to report Caylee's absence for 31 days, and was punished for that. Everything else is purely circumstantial. Sigh. You don't have to have it in black and white to be able to find someone guilty. As for circumstantial evidence, you may argue that it's not convincing enough, there's not enough of it to go beyond reasonable doubt for you, etc., but you can't dismiss it just on the account that it's circumstantial evidence. So it happens that in this best legal system of all, circumstantial evidence is as valid as any other evidence.

Sorry in advance for the run-on sentence:

If Casey was locked in a room with Caylee for a month and there was a 100% proof that no one else entered it and neither of them ever left during that time, and after the month the 2-year-old Caylee was found dead with a tape on her mouth, and Casey claimed Caylee was still alive the last time she looked, and there would be no witnesses and no fingerprints, etc. that would still be just circumstantial evidence.

And that in a way illustrates how (some at least) people came to the conclusions about Casey's guilt. The abundance of circumstantial evidence used with common sense and logical elimination. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure she did it, but to me (and obviously, many others) the presented evidence went beyond the reasonable doubt.

julieann
07-06-2011, 05:09 AM
For those that say they had reasonable doubt, can you explain where the reasonable part comes in for you? I don't mean that quite the way it sounds; it's just that for any alternate scenario I come up with, I find it to be about as likely as me becoming the queen of England. Beyond reasonable doubt isn't the same as beyond the shadow of a doubt - there will always be a doubt of what happened unless you were there or it was caught on video or something. And if you always had to acquit cases where cause of death can't be proven, that would make it awfully easy to get away with murder - just make sure nobody finds the body for a good few months.

For me, the whole body of circumstantial plus forensic evidence is enough for a conviction, at the very least for manslaughter if not for 1st degree murder. There could be reasonable doubt for each piece of evidence individually, but not so much when they're put together. I have a science background and find forensics interesting. I watched the trial and thought the forensic evidence was very compelling, enough to prove that Caylee had been in the trunk of Casey's car for several days and that Casey was the one who dumped her in the woods. She was found a block away with duct tape across her mouth, the car that Casey abandoned tested through the roof for chloroform, and deleted searches for chloroform were found on the computer. Add to that Casey's behavior - the hiding, the lying, refusing to admit Caylee was even missing, not cooperating with police, etc. To me there's no scenario of true accidental death that can explain all that - the only thing is if there was something to cover up. I might have enough reasonable doubt to think that maybe a young, scared mother could act that way if there was an accident that involved gross negligence on her part, so I could see convicting for manslaughter and not murder. On the other hand, to sit in jail for 3 years and risk the death sentence because you couldn't admit you were being negligent and the child died accidentally?

I don't buy the defense theory that the grandfather was involved in a drowning accident cover-up because I think only one very confused person could let something snowball out of control like that. I don't think there's any way that two people could come to the same conclusion that covering it up would be a good idea. I also think an older person, more experienced in child rearing and especially with a law enforcement background would know to call 911. I find it suspicious that the defense waited so long to come up with the drowning theory, something that could fit with the pathology findings.

Maybe if Casey was scared to tell the truth about some sort of accident, she might have put on the duct tape to try to make it look like a kidnapping homicide. But she never went through with a kidnapping story until she was caught without Caylee an entire month later. I wonder what her plan was - to never tell anyone Caylee was gone? Just dump the car in a parking lot? Some of her text messages to friends around that time had me wondering if she was plotting something insidious toward her parents, too - telling a girl friend that she could move into the Anthony home and they could be roommates, and telling her boyfriend that soon he could come over and spend the night any time he wanted. Hopefully my imagination is just overly active and she's not a menace to society - although I do find it horrifying that she'll be free to reproduce again :scream:

I still don't see a murder here. Horrible mother? Absolutely. Despicable human being? 100%. But I sill don't see where she murdered her own daughter. For sure not enough for a 1st degree conviction especially one that can put a needle in someone's arm. It's really easy to sit on our sofas and watch it on TV but I feel for those jurors who had to make that determination, and I'm sure they took it seriously.

Civic
07-06-2011, 05:12 AM
And Casey. We all know she did it. The evidence would have been plenty for me to convict her, at least with a life sentence...
Actually, we don't know for sure that she did it. We don't even know if the little girl was murdered or died as the result of an accident. That's probably why the jury acquitted her mother.

redonthehead
07-06-2011, 05:13 AM
When the trial started, I believed that Casey and her parents all knew what happened to Caylee. Today I still believe the same thing.

I didn't think that Casey actually killed Caylee but again knew what happened to her. I listened to the prosecution and was like "ok maybe" but was waiting for the defense. Months and months ago, JB said there was a story/defense and I was waiting to hear it. So, I thought that there was going to be a really really good defense that was going to prove and convince me that she really didn't kill her little girl. That another mother hadn't done the unthinkable. Then they start and it's nothing. Now I am convinced that she did it. I was totally surprised when the verdict came down today.

The only things I keep reminding myself about is that 1) I wasn't in the courtroom every day to hear everything they heard, 2) whether we agree or not, the jurors did their job and 3) that I'm just glad that I didn't have to make that decision.

I do not know who killed Caylee. I do know who does and that's God. I do know that He will have the ultimate judgement day and that Caylee is in Heaven resting in peace in His arms. Those things are what I do know.

Keep resting in peace sweet baby girl with the one that loves you more than anyone on earth can.

taf2002
07-06-2011, 05:14 AM
Damn! You called it correctly. I haven't followed this case so I don't have a dog in this fight. However, I assume that the jury felt the prosecution didn't prove Ms. Anthony's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt since they acquitted her. In that case they did the right thing. She wasn't on trial for being a self-absorbed party girl.

When I was single I had some friends who were single mothers. Some of them had much less help with their child/children than Casey had. But none of them had children who disappeared for 31 days while they were lying about their whereabouts. And while said child was missing, I feel sure none of them would have gotten a tattoo reading beautiful life or would have acted care-free. If the defense is to be believed the death was an accident. We are supposed to believe that Casey, knowing her child is dead, drove around with the body & then dumped her in the swamp & went on her merry way. This is an innocent person?

I felt the evidence was overwhelming against Casey, not because she was a self-absorbed party girl, but because these facts don't make sense. Would an innocent person act this way? Could a parent who cared anything for her child have dumped her in a swamp? For Casey not to even get charged with manslaughter is mind-boggling.

mysticchic
07-06-2011, 05:15 AM
This was insane today. I work in the media. I'm a freelance national news field producer and booker. Normally myself and the other producers keep quiet and don't post our feelings about stories that the networks cover we all work on. But today, a Sr producer at a major network posted what a bunch of BS this was. A bunch of the people I work with and book against all blew up each others cell and email. We never do this. This is crazy. Other then when we are out there we don't really keep in touch with each other. But today we all were so mad at everything we all started talking about it.
Right now all the networks are sending all the full timers/ and freelance field producers and bookers to FL to get the jurors, The Anthonys and Casey. We have all agreed that now Casey is not guilty of murder there will be a bidding war to get her on first. It makes me sick that NBC and ABC will pay money to have her on. They might not pay her for her interview, but for her and her family's access for her photos and other things.
The other thing is how is the parents going to handle when she comes home with all the things she and her lawyer accused them of.
This just makes me sick! A child is dead. No one will be punished for it.

julieann
07-06-2011, 05:16 AM
When I was single I had some friends who were single mothers. Some of them had much less help with their child/children than Casey had. But none of them had children who disappeared for 31 days while they were lying about their whereabouts. And while said child was missing, I feel sure none of them would have gotten a tattoo reading beautiful life or would have acted care-free. If the defense is to be believed the death was an accident. We are supposed to believe that Casey, knowing her child is dead, drove around with the body & then dumped her in the swamp & went on her merry way. This is an innocent person?

No, she is guily of being a shitty mother, but a 1st degree murderer? I would need more proof to kill her for it.

DickButtonFan
07-06-2011, 05:26 AM
Actually, we don't know for sure that she did it. We don't even know if the little girl was murdered or died as the result of an accident. That's probably why the jury acquitted her mother.

I found it obvious that this was a murder given the child ended up in a trash bag with duct tape on her mouth. The smell in the car, the hair with decomposition. The searches for neck breaking. There is tons of evidence.

Jenna
07-06-2011, 05:31 AM
I'm beginning to think it has to be stated word per word in order for you to believe it. Same with Casey murdering her daughter. Unless there's a tape with Casey murdering her daughter on it, and her own admission after that, nothing would be enough for you to find her guilty.

No need to talk down to me. I don't need a video tape, just something more convincing, like DNA.


You mean fallible?

Yes. Oops.


Come on, what you wrote right after that and the "undemocratic and not thorough" implication looks pretty much like putting it down.

But I wasn't. I was just stating that whether we agree with the verdict or not, we shouldn't attack the justice system because I think we have it pretty good here compared to other places. I don't believe that it was fair that the jurors were allowed to lave the courtroom during the Knox trial and that's why I stated "Just ask Amanda Knox." I wasn't putting down the entire country's legal system in general, just implying a fact from one particular trial.


Sigh. You don't have to have it in black and white to be able to find someone guilty. As for circumstantial evidence, you may argue that it's not convincing enough, there's not enough of it to go beyond reasonable doubt for you, etc., but you can't dismiss it just on the account that it's circumstantial evidence. So it happens that in this best legal system of all, circumstantial evidence is as valid as any other evidence.

I'm well aware of all of the above.


If Casey was locked in a room with Caylee for a month and there was a 100% proof that no one else entered it and neither of them ever left during that time, and after the month the 2-year-old Caylee was found dead with a tape on her mouth, and Casey claimed Caylee was still alive the last time she looked, and there would be no witnesses and no fingerprints, etc. that would still be just circumstantial evidence.

Right. And obviously this would have to be investigated further...you couldn't convict her based on the facts listed.


And that in a way illustrates how (some at least) people came to the conclusions about Casey's guilt. The abundance of circumstantial evidence used with common sense and logical elimination. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure she did it, but to me (and obviously, many others) the presented evidence went beyond the reasonable doubt.

OK, well that's up to you. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

AxelAnnie
07-06-2011, 05:41 AM
Well, I am still reeling from the verdict. Just astounded. They must have been measuring against NO doubt, rather than reasonable doubt. Really, unless you SEE the crime, at some point, there has to be doubt.

Totally flummoxed. But, that's the system.....so be it.

julieann
07-06-2011, 05:46 AM
I found it obvious that this was a murder given the child ended up in a trash bag with duct tape on her mouth. The smell in the car, the hair with decomposition. The searches for neck breaking. There is tons of evidence.

So... your in my house and fell down my stairs and when I ran to see what happened you had already broken you neck and was dead. I didn't tell anyone for 31 days and acted like nothing happened including getting a tattoo. I taped your mouth shut and use chemicals to make it appear to be kidnapping and let you rot in a trash bag in my trunk for a few days before I dumped your body in a swamp. Then I told a ton of lies to cover more lies...

Psycho? Perhaps....1st degree murderer?

Are you sure?

AxelAnnie
07-06-2011, 05:55 AM
Actually, we don't know for sure that she did it. We don't even know if the little girl was murdered or died as the result of an accident. That's probably why the jury acquitted her mother.

You never know for sure. NEVER. Unless she killed Caylee in front of 12 jurors....you never know. Accident or murder, she still is guilty. Baez, should, IMO, be taken out and shot. For him to throw out..........oh she drowned and George came walking around the corner with the dead Casey in his arms.....unconscionable. And adding that Caylee was molested every day by her father...........with NO proof. It is not right. Not just. Not one scintilla of evidence was admitted that proved either of those two things, yet he was able to throw those out there like they were gospel.

So, his strategy worked. But for whom? Not for justice. Not for Caylee. The Prosecutors played by the rules. What they said, they produced. You could go ahead and not believe it, or not accept it.............but to offer up two bombshells, not deliver, and get your client off. He should be disbarred.

Even if, as one of the alternate jurors said "They thought it was an accident that went terribly wrong" - who the heck was with Caylee when the "accident" happened............that would be Casey!

Makes me nuts. But, that is our system. The jury gets to decide, and they did.

Can't imagine what Casey will do with her life....or what George and Cindy and Lee will do with theirs. And, Casey brought all this to her family. She brought the chaos, the lies, the hiding that Caylee was missing, the insanity during the search. It is just wrong. I can't imagine how these people will survive..........Casey will though. She will have the old Bella Vida.

WindSpirit
07-06-2011, 05:56 AM
When the trial started, I believed that Casey and her parents all knew what happened to Caylee. Today I still believe the same thing. Knowing that her own mother called 911 because Casey would not tell her where Caylee was you still believe that Cindy knew what happened to Caylee all along? Or even that she knows now? There were also emails published between Cindy and her own brother where he was telling her she was out of her mind believing in the nanny or that Caylee was still alive, and Cindy was in a complete denial. Based on those two sources alone, I have all reasons to believe that Cindy had no idea what happened to Caylee and up until they found Caylee's body she clung to hope she was still alive. I don't think she knows now, either.


We have all agreed that now Casey is not guilty of murder there will be a bidding war to get her on first. It makes me sick that NBC and ABC will pay money to have her on. They might not pay her for her interview, but for her and her family's access for her photos and other things. I think they will totally pay for interviews with her, same with the jurors. Give it a few weeks (if that) and at least one of the jurors will be talking.

Casey's future book: Bella Vita: How I got away with murder and got rich doing it.

MacMadame
07-06-2011, 05:59 AM
Right, and none of us can say that we would've came up with a different verdict no matter how sure we are on a figure skating forum and in the court of public opinion.
I'm pretty sure I would have acquitted on the murder charge. Not so sure about the felony child abuse. I'd have to research what makes it felony vs. some lesser charge of child abuse and abuse vs. neglect.

The problem is, the state had a really tough row to hoe. They had to prove that child was murdered and they had to prove that Casey Anthony did it when the evidence that she was murdered was weak and there wasn't any physical evidence that tied what happened to Casey and Casey alone.

They didn't find the body in Casey's car. The duct tape didn't come from Casey's residence, but her parents. They never came up with a cause of death. Even people here who think Casey had "something" to do with Caylee's death don't all agree that it was murder. Some think it was an accident.

I think the state did a great job, but I had my doubts they'd get a conviction and am not surprised that it went down like it did.


HLN is reporting that the jury was tired and wanted to go home and that CSI have forever changed "evidence" and reasonable doubt.
See, I don't see that about CSI. Now, I love CSI and watch it (and CSI: New York) but one of the things that drives me crazy is that they act like they have enough evidence to successfully prosecute when they often have no evidence that can't be explained away.

If anything, I think CSI has made us, the public, more sure about people's guilt because we are used to seeing people we know are guilty get the "we got ya" speech based on evidence that wouldn't even result in a prosecution let alone a conviction in real life.


she cried tears of guilt.
Do tears of guilt look different than other tears? If not, how you do you know what they were tears of. :rolleyes:


I have a question for those who followed the trial. When the searches for "chloroform" were found, did they mention which web pages were actually visited?
Only web sites that are actually visited show up in the browser's history. If you Google something and don't go to a site, there is no evidence that that particular site came up in your search. Well, unless the last Google page was cached somehow. But none of the prior Google searches would still be around.

(Assuming she used Google, of course....)

taf2002
07-06-2011, 06:06 AM
If Casey was locked in a room with Caylee for a month and there was a 100% proof that no one else entered it and neither of them ever left during that time, and after the month the 2-year-old Caylee was found dead with a tape on her mouth, and Casey claimed Caylee was still alive the last time she looked, and there would be no witnesses and no fingerprints, etc. that would still be just circumstantial evidence.


Right. And obviously this would have to be investigated further...you couldn't convict her based on the facts listed.

What????? You wouldn't convict on this evidence? Well, I guess according to you no one has ever committed a crime unless YOU YOURSELF happened to witness it.

All I can say is I hope you never get on a jury if the defendant is guilty.