Casey Anthony trial...

[lulu]

The ME presented reasons why she determined the death to be a homicide-not three possible causes of death. It is not necessary to prove the cause of death. No one knew how Lacy Peterson died.

FrekeChild- the Defense theory is that the baby drowned in the pool and that George took possession of the body. So why would anyone cover the baby's mouth and nose with duct tape?

 

[Italiahaircolor]

If the ME gave 3 opinions on the cause of death, that certainly leaves doubt. It's no surprise the prosecution couldnt prove this. The prosecutors admitted this in closing, and after the trial.

I answered your question...so why are your skirting mine? What's the purpose of the duct tape? Could it be because the duct tape makes no sense to you either?

As for the 3 opinions, they weren't causes...they were things that lead her to her findings...as I said, "3 reasons why Caylee's death was a murder"...not 3 ways Caylee died. Huge difference, but still..

The three reasons were, for clarification...

1. The 31 days. 31 days with no reports filed. She said, that in cases of accidental deaths 100% of the time, someone calls that in.
2. The body was hidden. In accidental deaths with no outside involvement, there is absolutely no reason to hide the body.
3. The duct tape. If a child or adult dies accidentally, why the duct tape? In all of her years she's never come across that...in all the other ME's she consulted with, no one had heard of such a thing.

For me and apparently Dr. G and plenty of others, it was a "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" common sense matter. No one takes an accident and makes it look like murder. I mean, really, come on! Does that even process? Does that even make sense? If you love your child, and there is a terrible, horrible accident--you put yourself and your fears aside and you call 911. You don't take the baby and throw it away and "hope" no one finds out. That's just too stupid for words.

So, again, I ask...what do you suppose the duct tape was for?

 

[Lanie]

I can't believe I'm about to type this.

I read the jury's instructions, and they specifically spell out that you can convict if Casey is the one who did it. She's not on trial for world's worst mom. She's on trial for killing her child. The trial isn't about if Caylee was murdered. It's about whether or not Casey was a direct cause of her murder.

Before really thinking about it and digesting all of the info, I was gung-ho for a conviction of 1st degree murder. Now I think I'm being swayed. If you really look at the jury's instructions, it's hard to convict. MrHand, you were a real pest on your first posts on this thread, but I took your advice, and read the instructions.

Looking at first degree murder, I think something very criminal happened to her. If she drowned, someone tampered with her body and moved it, which is abuse of a corpse and obstruction of justice. If she didn't drown, then obviously she was murdered (which is what I really think happened). But it's a jump, albeit slight, to say that Casey definitely killed her. Yes she had access to the car, the stickers, yes she didn't report her for 31 days, and yes she sent everyone on a wild goose chase to search for her girl, which oh by the way, is dead. But it's not enough to convict for murder 1. It is somewhat reasonable, to me, to think that maybe Casey left Caylee in the care of someone else, and she was murdered.

Having said that, look at aggravated child abuse (2nd charge). That would be hard to convict as well, if you look at the jury's instructions. The state didn't prove that Casey willfully and knowingly caused physical or mental injury to Caylee. I think she was drugging her, but I have no proof.

Looking at aggravated manslaughter, the state didn't prove that Caylee's death was a cause of the neglect of Casey. For me, this charge is the real kicker. Here's how I could see how you could convict her on this: If Caylee drowned, Casey should have called 911, which could have potentially saved her life. Instead, she never did anything about trying to save her little girl. Casey said George was holding Caylee's drowned body, but by not calling 911, and covering it up, charge her with this. (To be honest, I'd love to convict her on murder 1 but if I were a juror, I'd try to sway them on this hypothesis).

What do you guys think?

 

[Italiahaircolor]

The ME presented reasons why she determined the death to be a homicide-not three possible causes of death. It is not necessary to prove the cause of death. No one knew how Lacy Peterson died.

FrekeChild- the Defense theory is that the baby drowned in the pool and that George took possession of the body. So why would anyone cover the baby's mouth and nose with duct tape?

Thank you, thank you, thank you! We don't know how Laci Peterson died--Scott Peterson could have said she fell off the boat and drown, yet there was justice for her and Connor--Scott Peterson, who was a shifty as Casey Anthony--is on death row.

It's the same as when a man is gunned down in the street...we don't need to know WHICH bullet killed him--was it the one that hit heart, or the one that hit his liver, we only need to know that he died...and the one that shot him needs to be held accountable.

People still act like everything legally needs to be tied up with a bow to be sellable. With skeletal remains so much is lost. I'm sure at one point the answers were all there--be it water in her lungs, or chloroform in her system--but because her mother opted to not report her for 31 days, those opportunities at the truth were lost. The message in this case that is so infuriating, is that if you can do a good enough job hiding a body so that all traces of fool proof death are concealed, you'll walk away a free person.

 

[FrekeChild]

I don't think that ANYONE is questioning that there is foul play here.

Those who agree with the acquittal are questioning WHO it was that placed the duct tape there.

 

[FrekeChild]

What do you guys think?

I'd have to agree with you. Minus the whole loving to convict her thing...

 

[Italiahaircolor]

What do you guys think?

I guess I personally go back to two things I know for certain

1. Caylee was duct taped
2. Casey was Caylee's mother

If she drown, like you questioned...some one moved the body. But, there is NO proof she drown. However, there was decomposition smells and death banded hair in the car. So, I take out the drowning, because there is no proof...but I can still look at the decomp and death banded hair.

So, Caylee was in Casey's car for X amount of time in order for those things to be found in the trunk. True? You have to believe in science, I do.

Casey was the last person with Caylee. Was Caylee with someone else? The Nanny? There was no Nanny, Casey admitted that. Then who? Someone Casey is covering for? Why? None of that is evidence. So again, I'm left knowing Caylee was ONLY with Casey.

Caylee goes missing. She's not reported. I'm taking out the behavior exhibited by Casey, since she wasn't on trial for that. But, what is in evidence, is the fact no one--not even her boyfriend--knew Caylee was missing or dead. Casey continued to make reference to bringing Caylee with her places. Did she believe Caylee was still alive? Not according to Jose Baez.

Caylee is found. Dead. Decomposed. Triple bagged with duct tape around the face keeping the mandible attached. In order for that to be the case, the duct tape would have to be applied PRIOR to decomposition. So why? All of the things found around Caylee were things from the Anthony home.

Was it the meter reader? He had no access to the Anthony home. Was it George? There is nothing linking him to it, outside of claims made in court--but he was at work the day Caylee went missing. Was it someone else? If so, why wasn't that person brought forward? Unless, it was hidden to protect a bigger, more revolting secret. But again, that's speculation...so I can't judge on that.

And then, of course, there was the computer searches. What are the real world chances someone would search "how to make chloroform" and then their child goes missing and elevated chloroform levels are found in the car? The searches were also deliberately deleted ... Casey was the only one home for those, regardless of Cindy's testimony which was proven untrue.

For me, all roads lead to Casey. She was with Caylee. She had access to home and things found with Caylee. She lied and covered up the vanishing of her daughter and her it didn't effect her one way or the other. There were elevated levels of chloroform in the trunk of Casey's car, levels of decomp and death band hair.

Yeah, I still think she's guilty. Maybe it doesn't fall under abuse but the computer searches--that's premeditation and but I can't wrap my mind around ANYONE else killing Caylee--removing all reasonable doubt. Sure, there is always that small chance--but that's not the standard of the law. I think the searches on the home computer

 

[mrhand]

Let me be clear. I'm certain Casey was invovlved, and in all likelihood she killed her kid. That's a far cry from the prosecuters proving it.

As for your duct tape question, it is irrelevant. The defense doesnt have to prove anything. They provided plausible, however unlikely explanations for all the prosecutions key points. The prosecution is the one that has to prove those explanations are false, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Let me be clear. I'm certain Casey was invovlved, and in all likelihood she killed her kid. That's a far cry from the prosecuters proving it.

As for your duct tape question, it is irrelevant. The defense doesnt have to prove anything. They provided plausible, however unlikely explanations for all the prosecutions key points. The prosecution is the one that has to prove those explanations are false, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you search "how to make chloroform" or "neck breaking" at home? How about "household weapons"? IMO, those are very deliberate, searches, those aren't google autofills. And, those same searches were deliberately removed from the computer.

Why do people remove things from a shared computer? For privacy? For secrecy? Because they don't want anyone else coming across them because they are odd?

Now...lets say someone did research those things...let's say that same person had a kid, and the kid went missing...and then air samples from the trunk showed extremely exaggerated levels of chloroform...and remember, chloroform dissipates over time, so when that child first went missing, and that car was first abandoned, those levels were much, much hire and were in a steady decline.

If you were in Vegas, betting on that...what do you think the odds of that trifecta would be? 1 in a billion? Greater yet? Is it reasonable to believe those three things randomly happened? For me...no.

Jurors are still encouraged to use their common sense...Ashton said as much in his closing argument...and I feel like that's what was left behind.

 

[mrhand]

What do you guys think?

I'm thinking you now understand why the jury did what they did, and why Im ticked off at people judging the jury.

 

[Loves Vintage]

I can't believe I'm about to type this.

I read the jury's instructions, and they specifically spell out that you can convict if Casey is the one who did it. She's not on trial for world's worst mom. She's on trial for killing her child. The trial isn't about if Caylee was murdered. It's about whether or not Casey was a direct cause of her murder.

Before really thinking about it and digesting all of the info, I was gung-ho for a conviction of 1st degree murder. Now I think I'm being swayed. If you really look at the jury's instructions, it's hard to convict. MrHand, you were a real pest on your first posts on this thread, but I took your advice, and read the instructions.

Looking at first degree murder, I think something very criminal happened to her. If she drowned, someone tampered with her body and moved it, which is abuse of a corpse and obstruction of justice. If she didn't drown, then obviously she was murdered (which is what I really think happened). But it's a jump, albeit slight, to say that Casey definitely killed her. Yes she had access to the car, the stickers, yes she didn't report her for 31 days, and yes she sent everyone on a wild goose chase to search for her girl, which oh by the way, is dead. But it's not enough to convict for murder 1. It is somewhat reasonable, to me, to think that maybe Casey left Caylee in the care of someone else, and she was murdered.

Having said that, look at aggravated child abuse (2nd charge). That would be hard to convict as well, if you look at the jury's instructions. The state didn't prove that Casey willfully and knowingly caused physical or mental injury to Caylee. I think she was drugging her, but I have no proof.

Looking at aggravated manslaughter, the state didn't prove that Caylee's death was a cause of the neglect of Casey. For me, this charge is the real kicker. Here's how I could see how you could convict her on this: If Caylee drowned, Casey should have called 911, which could have potentially saved her life. Instead, she never did anything about trying to save her little girl. Casey said George was holding Caylee's drowned body, but by not calling 911, and covering it up, charge her with this. (To be honest, I'd love to convict her on murder 1 but if I were a juror, I'd try to sway them on this hypothesis).

What do you guys think?

Lanie -

I hear what you are saying, but the prosecution must only prove each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The state does not have to prove that the defendant absolutely committed certain acts, or that the defendant definitely killed her baby.

This is an excerpt from the instructions http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2011/07/04/Jury_Instructions_1.pdf on reasonable doubt:

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.
Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction
of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence,
there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but
one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and
you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in
the evidence or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no
reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

****
So, my view hasn't changed at all. I actually did take a look at the instructions a few days ago. Do I know for certain that the defendant killed her baby? No, I cannot know that. Just like we cannot know the cause of death. There was no evidence remaining to make that determination. Is that the prosecutions fault? NO. Is it the defendant's fault? Beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, YES, and I still think it horribly sad that it appears the defendant is being rewarded for the fact that her baby's remains were so decomposed that it rendered a cause of death finding impossible.

I think someone (maybe Maria?) posted this portion of the instructions earlier. Yet still, the posts indicating the jury was correct are peppered with phrases demonstrating a lack of familiarity with the concept of reasonable doubt. This is why I think the jury was wrong. I do think they made the decision they *thought* was right at the time, but I do think they were looking for absolute proof, which IS NOT THE STANDARD.

ETA: Now that I re-read your post, Lanie, I see that you said maybe it was reasonable that the defendant gave her baby to someone else. Was that in evidence? I don't know, because as I've said before, I DIDN'T WATCH THE TRIAL. I'll also add a disclaimer: I only responded to your post, Lanie, because you referenced the jury instructions and you used the phrase "definitely killed", and I just wanted to remind EVERYONE, not you specifically, of the standard. OK, hopefully, this will be my last post in this thread! Time to go back to my oh.so.fabulous.life!

 

[mrhand]

if you can do a good enough job hiding a body so that all traces of fool proof death are concealed, you'll walk away a free person.

Pretty much. Though it is usually takes a damn smart person to accomplish such a feat. Or a lazy detective to assist.

 

[Maria D]

Let me be clear. I'm certain Casey was invovlved, and in all likelihood she killed her kid. That's a far cry from the prosecuters proving it.

As for your duct tape question, it is irrelevant. The defense doesnt have to prove anything. They provided plausible, however unlikely explanations for all the prosecutions key points. The prosecution is the one that has to prove those explanations are false, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the jury found the defense's theories plausible, by the instructions given to them they should still have convicted on the aggravated manslaughter charge. An unresponsive drowned child may have been revived. Here's a news item that happened today: http://www.pressherald.com/news/2-year-old-revived-after-falling-into-Maine-well-.html This kind of thing happens often.

If you go back and read the jury instructions for aggravated manslaughter and also research and read what juror #3 had to say you might understand why people are disagreeing with the jury. If not, go ahead and be ticked. We all are. At least you are only ticked at people that had no input into the outcome of this trial!

 

[mary poppins]

Oh, lordy, thank you. Someone else finally looked at the statutory requirements/jury instructions as I suggested way back on pages 10, 11 and 21, and understands how a jury could be compelled to acquit even if foul play is suspected.

Lanie, to take it a step further, to convict for aggravated manslaughter, you'd have to assume, as you did, that Caylee was alive or at least quickly discovered after an "accident." However, there's also the scenario that she was hopelessly or long-time deceased by the time she was discovered. In which case, there would be no reason to call 911 to save her life. Thus, no conviction for aggravated manslaughter, either.

A jury saying "Not Guilty" is not the same as saying she's innocent. It just means the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The analogy to Scott Peterson doesn't work because, if I recall correctly, the defense did not raise an alternate theory. In addition, the circumstantial evidence was stronger. The example with the bullets is not even an analogous situation.

 

[AmeliaG]

The message in this case that is so infuriating, is that if you can do a good enough job hiding a body so that all traces of fool proof death are concealed, you'll walk away a free person.

That is unfortunately true; however, I think people need to remember that most murder trials aren't like this. Most have more evidence than you need to convict, not less. As I posted earlier, the trial I served on lasted 3 days and the evidence was overwhelming. We were wondering what in the hell we were doing there and the judge said, this is about average. People watch these crime shows and come in expecting a big mystery but most of the time, there's not.

If someone is cruel and crazy enough to try to copy Casey Anthony and get away with murder, I daresay the odds are against them. Susan Smith probably thought her story was airtight except the police knew the red light she said she was stopped at where her car and children were stolen doesn't turn red if there's only one car at the intersection. Nobody knew that except the police. Without that, would they have gotten a confession, would they have found the childrens' bodies in time? Who knows? But they did.

Prisons are full of murderers who were sure they covered their tracks.

The unfortunate thing about Casey Anthony is that if she incriminates herself later, she can't be tried on these charges again. In principle, I agree, but in individual cases like this, it is frustrating.

 

[Maria D]

Oh, lordy, thank you. Someone else finally looked at the statutory requirements/jury instructions as I suggested way back on pages 10, 11 and 21, and understands how a jury could be compelled to acquit even if foul play is suspected.

Lanie, to take it a step further, to convict for aggravated manslaughter, you'd have to assume, as you did, that Caylee was alive or at least quickly discovered after an "accident." However, there's also the scenario that she was hopelessly or long-time deceased by the time she was discovered. In which case, there would be no reason to call 911 to save her life. Thus, no conviction for aggravated manslaughter, either.

A jury saying "Not Guilty" is not the same as saying she's innocent. It just means the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The analogy to Scott Peterson doesn't work because, if I recall correctly, the defense did not raise an alternate theory. In addition, the circumstantial evidence was stronger. The example with the bullets is not even an analogous situation.

"However, there's also the scenario that she was....."

This is what I call an example of "forced doubt" not reasonable doubt. There's always going to be a scenario.

When a person dies unexpectedly in the home, the police are supposed to be notified so that the death can be investigated. Why did this not happen?

 

[Lanie]

LV--semantics aside, yes, I understand the reasonable doubt business. I posted about that many times in this thread. It is such a subjective line, even after looking at the legal wording of it. And the only other person who could have had Caylee was Zenaida, which was fabricated. So I shouldn't have said that last sentence. It has crossed my mind that another person could have killed her and Casey is covering up some larger, more heinous secret (as mentioned by italia). But you are right--I couldn't use that in my thought process as a juror. And I hear you on this whole thing sucking the time out of our lives. You'd think we don't have infants who want our undivided attention!

Mary poppins--yes, you were the one that said to look at the jury instructions. Not mrhand. I'm glad you mentioned them and I'm glad you mentioned the part about "not guilty doesn't mean innocent".

Italia--I'm frustrated too by this. I certainly don't want people to think they can get away with murder bc of semantics.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

The analogy to Scott Peterson doesn't work because, if I recall correctly, the defense did not raise an alternate theory. In addition, the circumstantial evidence was stronger. The example with the bullets is not even an analogous situation.

Actually, it kind of does--you yourself said the defense needs to prove nothing. The defense doesn't need to spell it out, or raise a 'what if'...Laci was found in the water. But, any Juror, independently, could have reasonably wondered if it was fishing trip gone wrong. But they didn't. Why? Because what man wouldn't save his pregnant wife if she fell off a boat, or call for help?

That's the thing. There are always a million and one ways to look at things. The evidence, or lack there of, can lead you down a thousand rabbit holes, but if your string it together and you use your common sense, you can come to a reasonable conclusion.

There was zero evidence of a drowning, but we're talking about it like it was plausible and yet, if we're going by the letter of the law, we shouldn't even be considering it--there is nothing remotely linking Caylee's death to drowning in the pool other than what Baez said in his opening statement. Whereas the computer searches and the evidence that do, in away, tie together aren't enough for some people.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Lanie, to take it a step further, to convict for aggravated manslaughter, you'd have to assume, as you did, that Caylee was alive or at least quickly discovered after an "accident." However, there's also the scenario that she was hopelessly or long-time deceased by the time she was discovered. In which case, there would be no reason to call 911 to save her life. Thus, no conviction for aggravated manslaughter, either.

Which is exactly why Caylee's law is trucking along (almost 2 million signatures). Hope or no hope, there is no decision...you call 911. Why WOULDN'T you call 911? That's your baby, your child. And, sorry, if a parent decides to just throw the child away because calling 911 is uncomfortable, well, that's just criminal.

 

[JewelFreak]

Two cadaver dogs indicated a body, both in the trunk and in the back yard. Their handlers testified that neither dog had EVER made a wrong indication in the years they'd been working with them. It was not trash that smelled. Cadaver dogs are so reliable, their findings have been admitted as evidence around the world for decades. That makes it obvious nobody else killed Caylee & dumped her. Casey was the ONLY one using that car when Caylee died & afterward. That brings us back to "why would a sane person -- Casey WAS sane -- drive a dead accident victim around for several days?" Especially if it's her own 2-yr-old daughter? Imagine yourself breathing in a car with a 4-day-old corpse during a Florida summer. Why would you do it?

Can anybody give a plausible reason for that? Please?

Juror #3 got hot under the collar about the death penalty in one interview. She said defensively, "I can't judge a person without exact evidence. If I'm responsible for killing one person & am wrong, that means 2 people were killed unjustly." This is IMPROPER. Jurors are instructed that the 2 phases -- guilt and penalty -- are INDEPENDENT issues. They are NOT to take penalty into their discussions on guilt. Besides, the same jury got to decide the penalty -- they could give life in prison if they felt it was right.

Janine Pirro had a juror from the Peterson trial on her show last night. He talked about how stressful it is to be on a trial like that. They were not sequestered & he said it still was a very heavy burden. Being sequestered, he said, would make it so much worse -- he thought the jury just wanted to get done & go home. "They came up with PC reasons afterward," he guessed. I've wondered the same thing.

 

[Maria D]

Italia wrote: "Hope or no hope, there is no decision...you call 911. Why WOULDN'T you call 911? That's your baby, your child. And, sorry, if a parent decides to just throw the child away because calling 911 is uncomfortable, well, that's just criminal."

Not only is there no decision, it's the law in Orange County (and probably in al civilized countries) that you must report an unexpected death. From http://ocgov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/Sheriff-Coroner/Docs/Coroner/Government_Code.pdf:::

"It shall be the duty of the coroner to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of all violent, sudden, or unusual deaths; unattended deaths; deaths where the deceased has not been attended by either a physician or a registered nurse, who is a member of a hospice care interdisciplinary team, as defined by subdivision (e) of Section 1746 of the Health and Safety Code in the 20 days before death; deaths related to or following known or suspected self-induced or criminal abortion; known or suspected homicide, suicide, or accidental poisoning; deaths known or suspected as resulting in whole or in part from or related to accident or injury either old or recent; deaths due to drowning,....big snip here....
Any funeral director, physician, or other person who has charge of a deceased person's body, when death occurred as a result of any of the causes or circumstances described in this section, shall immediately notify the coroner. Any person who does not notify the coroner as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."

I suppose those that insist upon finding forced doubt or mere possible doubt could say that Casey was never charged of this misdemeanor. That's because there is ZERO evidence of death by accident or natural causes in this case. All the evidence, especially the manner in which the body was found, points to foul play. If you are using the defense's theory as plausible and as your "reasonable doubt," you are going against specific instruction of Judge Perry. Also, if you dismiss the duct tape as evidence that the child did not die accidentally because you don't know who put the duct tape on there, you are missing the point of that evidence. Cause of death could not be determined because the body decomposed in a hot Florida swamp for 6 months. That's why the klller placed the body there instead of in a meat freezer. But the duct tape is evidence of how Caylee did NOT die. She didn't die by accident. Now, as a juror, it would be up to you to weigh the evidence that this was not an accident and go from there. Falling back on "we don't have cause of death so forget it, thinking time is over," is shirking responsibility.

I also want to clarify my last post where I mentioned researching and reading the interview with Juror #2. I meant #3. You can read it here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece He talks about the 6-6 vote for manslaughter that fell apart because it became clear that there were some jurors who would not convict Casey Anthony for any involvement in the death of her daughter.

Jewelfreak, I completely agree with your assessment of Juror #2. She does not get "reasonable doubt" and did not understand her responsibility to come to a verdict without considering sentence.

My last words on this, because I know I am preaching to the choir and not going to change anyone's mind who doesn't agree with me:

Some here have said that they are certain that Casey did this but felt that acquittal of all charges relating to the death was the only option. I also am certain that she did this. I had very little knowledge of this case before the trial. I didn't pay any attention to the missing child/search/found dead events of 2008. I didn't know anything about the weirdness of the family until the trial -- hadn't heard about the attempted suicide, affairs, outrageous lies until this Spring. I base my certainty on the evidence that I read about and watched -- and did not watch Nancy Grace. If I had been on this or any jury, I would not have felt sick to my stomach at the delivered verdict. I would only give a verdict that I felt right about deep down to my core. If an intelligent, thoughtful person can be presented with evidence that leads them to be certain about one thing but feels that the law requires that they determine something else, then I do not understand the point of trial by jury at all.

 

[JewelFreak]

If an intelligent, thoughtful person can be presented with evidence that leads them to be certain about one thing but feels that the law requires that they determine something else, then I do not understand the point of trial by jury at all.

Agree a thousand percent, Maria. And the law does not require that, unfortunately for the jury's verdict here.

A note about the Anthony family's "weirdness." We actually have no evidence they were any stranger than a zillion other families. Since Baez could offer nobody to testify to abuse, we can assume there wasn't any. The parents enabled a self-centered, manipulative, & dishonest daughter, probably throughout her life, but how many thousands of others have done the same? Not good parenting, but not "weird." Dumb, but not bizarre. George may or may not have slept with a woman who professed compassion at a time of stress none of us can imagine -- while his wife seems to have been more wrapped up in once again getting her daughter out of trouble than in giving him emotional support he obviously needed badly. Poor choice, but I wouldn't call it weird.

All other family behavior mentioned took place when the light of their life was missing & their daughter invented one story after another, ditto after this little girl's skeleton was found in the mud & gook, her mother's car reeking of decay & death. Honestly, absent Nazi occupation, I can't picture a worse catastrophe in a family. I don't know how I'd act but I'll guarantee it would not be the way I normally do. Perhaps they weren't ever the most pleasant family or the best balanced, but they don't sound different to me than a good many. Until death & murder entered their lives.

--- Laurie

 

[lulu]

But there was an alternate theory in the Peterson case- that she was abducted by a third person. There's always an alternate theory.

Doubt must be reasonable. This was an overwhelming circumstantial case.Every item found with the baby was directly connected to the house, especially the duct tape. I'm afraid that all these CSI type shows are sending a message that if there is no dna we don't convict.

 

[dragonfly411]

I can't believe I'm about to type this.

I read the jury's instructions, and they specifically spell out that you can convict if Casey is the one who did it. She's not on trial for world's worst mom. She's on trial for killing her child. The trial isn't about if Caylee was murdered. It's about whether or not Casey was a direct cause of her murder.

Before really thinking about it and digesting all of the info, I was gung-ho for a conviction of 1st degree murder. Now I think I'm being swayed. If you really look at the jury's instructions, it's hard to convict. MrHand, you were a real pest on your first posts on this thread, but I took your advice, and read the instructions.

Looking at first degree murder, I think something very criminal happened to her. If she drowned, someone tampered with her body and moved it, which is abuse of a corpse and obstruction of justice. If she didn't drown, then obviously she was murdered (which is what I really think happened). But it's a jump, albeit slight, to say that Casey definitely killed her. Yes she had access to the car, the stickers, yes she didn't report her for 31 days, and yes she sent everyone on a wild goose chase to search for her girl, which oh by the way, is dead. But it's not enough to convict for murder 1. It is somewhat reasonable, to me, to think that maybe Casey left Caylee in the care of someone else, and she was murdered.

Having said that, look at aggravated child abuse (2nd charge). That would be hard to convict as well, if you look at the jury's instructions. The state didn't prove that Casey willfully and knowingly caused physical or mental injury to Caylee. I think she was drugging her, but I have no proof.

Looking at aggravated manslaughter, the state didn't prove that Caylee's death was a cause of the neglect of Casey. For me, this charge is the real kicker. Here's how I could see how you could convict her on this: If Caylee drowned, Casey should have called 911, which could have potentially saved her life. Instead, she never did anything about trying to save her little girl. Casey said George was holding Caylee's drowned body, but by not calling 911, and covering it up, charge her with this. (To be honest, I'd love to convict her on murder 1 but if I were a juror, I'd try to sway them on this hypothesis).

What do you guys think?

The other side of aggravated manslaughter would be to look at it as Casey was going out, leaving her child with random people, or none at all since there is no human being that is "Zanny", so yes her being a neglectful mother caused her daughter to be killed in some manner....

 

[JewelFreak]

Exactly what I've wondered all along, Dragonfly!! WHERE was Caylee all those times she was with "Zanny?" Drugged & asleep somewhere? (The name Zanny sure conjures that idea.) Left with, as you so picturesquely put it, random people? Or both? I've always shuddered at the possibilities.

 

[Imdanny]

If an intelligent, thoughtful person can be presented with evidence that leads them to be certain about one thing but feels that the law requires that they determine something else, then I do not understand the point of trial by jury at all.

Agree a thousand percent, Maria. And the law does not require that, unfortunately for the jury's verdict here.

A note about the Anthony family's "weirdness." We actually have no evidence they were any stranger than a zillion other families. Since Baez could offer nobody to testify to abuse, we can assume there wasn't any. The parents enabled a self-centered, manipulative, & dishonest daughter, probably throughout her life, but how many thousands of others have done the same? Not good parenting, but not "weird." Dumb, but not bizarre. George may or may not have slept with a woman who professed compassion at a time of stress none of us can imagine -- while his wife seems to have been more wrapped up in once again getting her daughter out of trouble than in giving him emotional support he obviously needed badly. Poor choice, but I wouldn't call it weird.

All other family behavior mentioned took place when the light of their life was missing & their daughter invented one story after another, ditto after this little girl's skeleton was found in the mud & gook, her mother's car reeking of decay & death. Honestly, absent Nazi occupation, I can't picture a worse catastrophe in a family. I don't know how I'd act but I'll guarantee it would not be the way I normally do. Perhaps they weren't ever the most pleasant family or the best balanced, but they don't sound different to me than a good many. Until death & murder entered their lives.

--- Laurie

Laurie, I didn't watch this trial or pay attention to the news when it was happening. Can you please clarify this for me?

Am I correct in my impression that the child was murdered or died, the mother didn't call 911, the mother put duct tape (before or after the death) on the child's mouth, and disposed of the child like a piece of garbage, after doing internet searches on how to commit murder?

What is wrong with my impression? What facts do I have wrong? What relevant facts have I omitted?

And some would have us believe that there was reasonable doubt?

Did I get this right?

 

[JewelFreak]

Pretty much on the mark, Danny. She made excuses for 31 days (while she partied constantly & got herself tattooed) to the grandparents about where the kid was -- with a nanny who turned out not to exist, at Disneyworld, etc., until the grandmother forced the issue & then called 911 -- a month after the child was killed. Found 6 mo. later in a swamp down the street from their house, inside 2 plastic bags & 1 laundry bag, with duct tape attached to the skull. Grandparents said the mother's car smelled like a dead body had been in it -- and 2 cadaver dogs confirmed that. Computer searches done as you stated, when both grandparents were at work & only the mother was home (3 months before the death). Because she put the body where it would not be quickly found, it decomposed & skeletal remains offered no info on precise cause of death, though chloroform was detected in the car trunk & duct tape still held jaw & top of skull together.

Defense says, maybe she drowned & the grandfather made the mother throw her out, saying she'd be put in jail for not watching her child. Grandfather is an ex-cop who adored the kid. No testimony supporting drowning given. Oh, and maybe the grandfather sexually molested his daughter, Caylee's mother, all her life & that's why she obeyed him when he said, "Let's make an accident look like a murder." Again, no testimony about abuse at all -- only fairy tales in the opening statement, which is NOT to be used as evidence w/out proof presented.

Yep, we're to believe there was reasonable doubt because after 6 months in a swamp there were no DNA or fingerprints & maybe a Martian did it. Without a video of the murder, how can we possibly judge anybody? After all, they do it on tv!

 

[Ella]

Please be respectful of others and their opinions so that this thread may continue as a good debate. We do not tolerate name calling or disrespectful posts.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Exactly what I've wondered all along, Dragonfly!! WHERE was Caylee all those times she was with "Zanny?" Drugged & asleep somewhere? (The name Zanny sure conjures that idea.) Left with, as you so picturesquely put it, random people? Or both? I've always shuddered at the possibilities.

I thought about this a lot today---and while I don't want to speculate, there has always been this piece missing. Someone once suggested that maybe Caylee was used in some sort of child pornography ring--which, to be honest--make me physically ill. But, Caylee HAD to be somewhere.

I think about George and Cindy when I consider this. It's true that Casey was a thief, but how is it that they never noticed Casey contributed nothing over the course of 2 years to the financial aspect of raising Caylee? Kids cost A LOT of money. Didn't they ever wonder where Casey's paycheck was going when she had no money for gas, or diapers or clothing? She didn't steal that much money.

Casey kept things hidden, she had a lot of well constructed lies. Maybe it is possible that she was involved with something really heinous that--even to save her own life--she couldn't come clean about. Something so gross, something so revolting, something indisputable. I'm NOT saying she didn't kill Caylee--I believe 1000% she did--but I also think there is something, somewhere that was missed.

 

[Laila619]

When a person dies unexpectedly in the home, the police are supposed to be notified so that the death can be investigated. Why did this not happen?

Maria, because as you know, the law does not apply to the Anthonys.

Italia, I wondered that too. How could she hide the fact that she had no paycheck coming in every week? Her parents must have paid for everything when it came to Caylee. They really did Casey no favors by enabling her. She still lived at home, sponged off her parents, shirked her responsibilities as a mother, and they never noticed that she didn't have any income?