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

cruisin
07-15-2011, 05:36 PM
There was no nose or mouth when Caylee was found. The tape was in place where a nose and/or mouth would have been. The state's expert did say it was put there, otherwise the jaw would have fallen off the skull and I don't think any reasonable person would believe that the tape accidently happened to fall where it did.

I heard different reports on this. Some said that the tape was in the area of the mouth/jaw. Some said it was more toward the top of the skull. FYR, this is just chilling, talking about this.


Circumstantial evidence when added up is better in many cases than eye-witness testimony, because people don't always agree on what was seen. IMO where the jury went wrong is this: can you explain away (not prove) the 1st fact, the 2nd fact, etc. Yes, but when you add up all the known facts, do they paint a picture that is different than the defense?

ETA: I'm not saying she should have been found guilty of 1st degree murder. That doesn't mean I'm a credulous fool who believes that incredible story from Baez.

And again, we don't disagree, actually we never have. But the jury did not see the tape or any of the rest of the evidence as compelling enough to convict for the charges applied. If the prosecution had not been so overly zealous in going for murder 1 and the death penalty, maybe they would have gotten the conviction. It is a tragedy and a travesty.

duane
07-15-2011, 05:44 PM
Circumstantial evidence when added up is better in many cases than eye-witness testimony, because people don't always agree on what was seen. IMO where the jury went wrong is this: can you explain away (not prove) the 1st fact, the 2nd fact, etc. Yes, but when you add up all the known facts, do they paint a picture that is different than the defense?
What is even more confusing is that according to one of the jurors who is speaking out, they didn't believe the accidental drowning/panic story. When asked by the interviewer that if they didn't believe the drowning/panic version of events given by the defense, then why didn't they convict Casey of murder or one of the lesser charges, the woman again said there was no proof of what actually happened.

In the end, the defense did an EXCELLENT job in jury selection. These jurors wanted nothing less than proof of everything...how the child died, when the child died, and why the child died. They obviously had no interest, common sense, or rationale to understand and to make reasonable conclusions of the circumstantial evidence.

Lacey
07-15-2011, 06:12 PM
There was no nose or mouth when Caylee was found. The tape was in place where a nose and/or mouth would have been. The state's expert did say it was put there, otherwise the jaw would have fallen off the skull and I don't think any reasonable person would believe that the tape accidently happened to fall where it did.



I had not read such a description of the corpse as this before, how truly sad, no nose or mouth and yet it explains a lot because it wasn't a whole body/face. But if the tape was where the nose or mouth would have been, well then, wake up and convict of the correct charge. And, yes, no reasonable person would believe that the tape fell.



I wonder if Casey will be let out today or tonight hoping for a surprise disappearance.

MacMadame
07-15-2011, 06:13 PM
there is not a typical response to loss, as there is no typical loss.
So, in fact, IceAlisa, what you posted in order to support your POV actually supports mine and Ziggy's.

I can think of several scenarios where Casey had nothing to do with the death and little to nothing to do with covering it up. For example, it's been suggested that Casey was pimping out her child and that the child died during one of these sessions. Casey wasn't there and showed up later to a dead child. She either helped cover it up or she just let the pimp cover it up and didn't say anything. Or it was already covered up when she got there and she didn't report it.

Another scenario is that George and/or Lee kidnapped the child to teach Casey a lesson of some sort and it all backfired. In the second scenario, she figured the kid was okay (Daddy/Brother wouldn't hurt my baby) and that's why she went out partying. By the time she figures out it wasn't okay, it's too late so she does nothing. Plus, she doesn't want to get them in trouble.

AxelAnnie
07-15-2011, 06:33 PM
^ ROFL:rofl::rofl:

IceAlisa
07-15-2011, 06:41 PM
So, in fact, IceAlisa, what you posted in order to support your POV actually supports mine and Ziggy's. No, it doesn't. What I am saying is that while Kubler-Ross' ideas have value, they are not an absolute, just like anything in science, soft or hard. For example, results of a randomized controlled trial give us general information about a group of people but say next to nothing about a specific individual. Do they still have value? I think so. The scientific community thinks so. There is no reason to be such a concrete thinker.


I can think of several scenarios where Casey had nothing to do with the death and little to nothing to do with covering it up. For example, it's been suggested that Casey was pimping out her child and that the child died during one of these sessions. Casey wasn't there and showed up later to a dead child. She either helped cover it up or she just let the pimp cover it up and didn't say anything. Or it was already covered up when she got there and she didn't report it.

Another scenario is that George and/or Lee kidnapped the child to teach Casey a lesson of some sort and it all backfired. In the second scenario, she figured the kid was okay (Daddy/Brother wouldn't hurt my baby) and that's why she went out partying. By the time she figures out it wasn't okay, it's too late so she does nothing. Plus, she doesn't want to get them in trouble.
And what evidence is there to support any of these theories?

FigureSpins
07-15-2011, 07:09 PM
The pimping theory isn't that wild:
http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-raleigh/shaniya-davis-case-update-mario-mcneill-dec-9-court-appearance-future-date-has-been-set

Twizzler
07-15-2011, 07:12 PM
No, it doesn't. What I am saying is that while Kubler-Ross' ideas have value, they are not an absolute, just like anything in science, soft or hard. For example, results of a randomized controlled trial give us general information about a group of people but say next to nothing about a specific individual. Do they still have value? I think so. The scientific community thinks so. There is no reason to be such a concrete thinker.

And what evidence is there to support any of these theories?

I have heard the child porn theory as well. To my knowledge, there is no evidence. Supposedly, chloroform is used rampantly in child porn to sedate the child so they don't fight what is happening to them.

If this happened, Caylee COULD HAVE died accidentally by inhaling too much chloroform. Sick.

IF this theory were to be true, Casey could be charged for child porn, etc. and put away for a LONG time. From what I read, there is no statute of limitations on this.

attyfan
07-15-2011, 07:28 PM
What is even more confusing is that according to one of the jurors who is speaking out, they didn't believe the accidental drowning/panic story. When asked by the interviewer that if they didn't believe the drowning/panic version of events given by the defense, then why didn't they convict Casey of murder or one of the lesser charges, the woman again said there was no proof of what actually happened.

In the end, the defense did an EXCELLENT job in jury selection. These jurors wanted nothing less than proof of everything...how the child died, when the child died, and why the child died. They obviously had no interest, common sense, or rationale to understand and to make reasonable conclusions of the circumstantial evidence.

Casey was charged with specific crimes, each one of which has specific elements. All charged homicides (1st degree murder, 2nd degree and manslaughter) were premised on the assumption that Casey caused the death, with debate over her mental state (i.e., was the killing intentional? accidental during abuse?)

If there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to how Caylee died, then I would think it impossible to determine her guilt of any specific crime. That can't be a lack of interest or common sense, IMO.

MacMadame
07-15-2011, 08:52 PM
No, it doesn't. What I am saying is that while Kubler-Ross' ideas have value, they are not an absolute, just like anything in science, soft or hard. For example, results of a randomized controlled trial give us general information about a group of people but say next to nothing about a specific individual. Do they still have value? I think so. The scientific community thinks so. There is no reason to be such a concrete thinker.
So, in fact, you agree with me! (and Ziggy). You've just admitted that Casey's reactions could be reasonable for her because the Stages of Grief say next to nothing about a specific individual.


And what evidence is there to support any of these theories?
It's the same evidence that you think proves she murdered her kid. It can be used to explain several scenarios. Which is the entire problem.



If there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to how Caylee died, then I would think it impossible to determine her guilt of any specific crime. That can't be a lack of interest or common sense, IMO.
Exactly.

Twizzler
07-15-2011, 08:53 PM
Apparently, Casey wants to appeal the lying conviction. Seriously?????

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/casey-anthony-plans-appeal-convictions-lying-164116184.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

agalisgv
07-15-2011, 08:57 PM
Psychology is for the most part a soft science. The stages of grief are still taught...

Yes, this guy challenged it. So what? He challenged the pop psychology misreading of the stages of grief which is what you put forward. The stages originally outlined were NOT stages people pass through when mourning the loss of a loved one. Rather they are the stages people go through when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness. Your use of the stages is completely off here.

duane
07-15-2011, 09:00 PM
Casey was charged with specific crimes, each one of which has specific elements. All charged homicides (1st degree murder, 2nd degree and manslaughter) were premised on the assumption that Casey caused the death, with debate over her mental state (i.e., was the killing intentional? accidental during abuse?)

If there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to how Caylee died, then I would think it impossible to determine her guilt of any specific crime. That can't be a lack of interest or common sense, IMO.
I would agree if the defense hadn't given its own account of how Caylee died. But according to them, Caylee drowned. Not proof of how the child actually died, but a reasonable conclusion is that Casey knows how her daughter died, and was involved in disposing of the body.

So, the jury not only had circumstantial evidence--the lies told to the police, the duct tape found on the body, the chloroform evidence, the incriminating web searches, the dead body smell in the trunk, Casey's partying after supposedly finding her beloved daughter accidentally drowned--but they also had the defendant's own incredulous account of what supposedly happened to Caylee.

IceAlisa
07-15-2011, 09:01 PM
So, in fact, you agree with me! (and Ziggy). You've just admitted that Casey's reactions could be reasonable for her because the Stages of Grief say next to nothing about a specific individual. Reasonable? I thought you contended that there is no reasonable reaction. Le shrug. Taken out of context of the trial one may say that this is an unusual way to grieve. However, taken together with other facts, this points to a much simpler explanation. I tend to favor simpler explanations, taken together with the fact that she lied to the police and other factors not in her favor.



It's the same evidence that you think proves she murdered her kid.

You are avoiding answering my question. That's OK. This isn't a court of law but that fact speaks for itself. :P


He challenged the pop psychology misreading of the stages of grief which is what you put forward. The stages originally outlined were NOT stages people pass through when mourning the loss of a loved one. Rather they are the stages people go through when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness. Your use of the stages is completely off here.
Actually, they've been used to discuss any important loss. And that's not even the point.

As a side note: do you have any formal training in psychology? Or do you think, as usual, that googling a few links without meaningful knowledge makes you an expert?

attyfan
07-15-2011, 09:04 PM
I would agree if the defense hadn't given its own account of how Caylee died. But according to them, Caylee drowned. Not proof of how the child actually died, but a reasonable conclusion is that Casey knows how her daughter died, and was involved in disposing of the body.

So, the jury not only had circumstantial evidence--the lies told to the police, the duct tape found on the body, the chloroform evidence, the incriminating web searches, the dead body smell in the trunk, Casey's partying after supposedly finding her beloved daughter accidentally drowned--but they also had the defendant's own incredulous account of what supposedly happened to Caylee.

The jury is told that statements of counsel are not evidence. Casey didn't take the stand and testify to it. So, while I agree with your characterization of the story, the jury did not have "the defendant's own incredulous account" because it was in opening statement, not in evidence.