View Full Version : Casey Anthony Verdict



BBatesokc
07-06-2011, 06:53 AM
I'm not too highbrow to admit I've been glued to this story since the beginning.

Wondering what other's thoughts are regarding the verdict?

For me personally, I think our justice system did what it was supposed to do. I think she's guilty but I don't think the prosecution proved it - which should always be our standard.

td25er
07-06-2011, 08:12 AM
I'm not too highbrow to admit I've been glued to this story since the beginning.

Wondering what other's thoughts are regarding the verdict?

For me personally, I think our justice system did what it was supposed to do. I think she's guilty but I don't think the prosecution proved it - which should always be our standard.

Whether she did it or not, this psycho didn't report her "missing" 2 year old for a month and partied during this time. She deserves life in prison for that alone (the not reporting). I have no doubt that this crazy biotch will rot in Hell. Maybe somebody will use chloroform on her and throw her in the trunk for a while. Then they can borrow the neighbor's shovel for an hour to bury her.

I can agree the prosecution didn't prove it. They proved she's a disgusting person. I wonder what the verdict would have been if she was a man or a minority

betts
07-06-2011, 08:20 AM
I'm going to say something controversial. Why do we require people to be a certain age and pass a written and practical test to drive a car, yet we allow people to breed indiscriminately? If I were the judge, I would have sentenced her to a tubal ligation. She has proven to the world that she isn't qualified to be a mother. Why is it an inalienable right to produce unwanted children who end up being abused and sometimes murdered?

rcjunkie
07-06-2011, 08:25 AM
I'm not too highbrow to admit I've been glued to this story since the beginning.

Wondering what other's thoughts are regarding the verdict?

For me personally, I think our justice system did what it was supposed to do. I think she's guilty but I don't think the prosecution proved it - which should always be our standard.

I agree, the system worked, rather we agree with the outcome or not.

kevinpate
07-06-2011, 08:37 AM
Didn't follow enough to question the jury's decision, but yeah, in general terms, if a jury follows the law, a weak case, even if some are convinced it is strong, ought to end with a verdict of not guilty.

As you know well, though I often believe many in the general population do not, a jury finding someone not guilty does not equate to saying the person is innocent. It is a statement that sufficient evidence of guilt for the specific crime(s) charged did not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, based on what I heard on the news, the jury did find guilt on some items, just not the major offenses.

All in all, that sounds to me like the folks probably did their jobs.

earlywinegareth
07-06-2011, 10:04 AM
The first mistake made by the State of FL was trying to convict her of first-degree murder when there wasn't sufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt. Prosecution didn't prove it's case. They gambled and lost.

Do I think the mom had something to do with the death? Absolutely...but whether it was intentional, accidental, or a result of negligence, there's no knowing. My gut says it was negligence...like the mom was away and left the child alone then tried to cover things up with lies.

Of Sound Mind
07-06-2011, 10:25 AM
As you know well, though I often believe many in the general population do not, a jury finding someone not guilty does not equate to saying the person is innocent. It is a statement that sufficient evidence of guilt for the specific crime(s) charged did not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, based on what I heard on the news, the jury did find guilt on some items, just not the major offenses.
That's one reason that I wish they would change the options to "guilty" or "not proven."


The first mistake made by the State of FL was trying to convict her of first-degree murder when there wasn't sufficient evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt. Prosecution didn't prove it's case. They gambled and lost.
They really didn't gamble. The jury had multiple options on that first count:
— Guilty of first degree murder
— Guilty of second degree murder
— Guilty of manslaughter
— Guilty of third degree felony murder
— Not Guilty

Verdict forms: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf

Bill Robertson
07-06-2011, 10:31 AM
I agree that the system worked as it is supposed to. The prosecution didn't make a "beyond a reasonable doubt" case.

I also think she's guilty as (insert anexpletiveve here), but that will be handled by a greater power at a later date.

Pete
07-06-2011, 10:37 AM
I think she's guilty but I don't think the prosecution proved it - which should always be our standard.

Yep.

It's very obvious she had something to do with that child's death but the evidence was pretty shaky.

redrunner
07-06-2011, 10:48 AM
I hope Dexter gets her.

oneforone
07-06-2011, 10:55 AM
Now, we get to see her make the rounds on the talk show circuit. I think the best thing people can do is forget she ever existed. Don't let her make millions on tv and book deals.

Martin
07-06-2011, 11:00 AM
'if i did it' by casey anthony -M

FritterGirl
07-06-2011, 11:05 AM
"NOT GUILTY" =/= innocent

Like others, my gut tells me unequivocally that she had something to do with Caylee's death. Unfortunately, due to time and circumstance, there was not enough evidence to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, or to DIRECTLY connect Casey to the death in any way.

A sad, sad day for Caylee, indeed, but in the end, the court system worked as it should.

oneforone
07-06-2011, 11:14 AM
The Anthony case should be an example to police departments and prosecuting attorneys everywhere. Don't go with your gut instict alone. Don't expect witnesses and experts to seal the deal for you. Obtain as much solid evidence as possible even if it takes years to put it together. After all the statute of limitations in most states do not apply to the taking of a human life. People have been sent to prison many years after the crime occurred so take your time and put the case together the right way.

earlywinegareth
07-06-2011, 11:24 AM
I'd also add the behavior of Prosecutor Jeff Ashton during the defense's closing comments was nothing short of bizarre. Hard to believe he was a seasoned veteran of the courtroom.

kevinpate
07-06-2011, 11:35 AM
I'd also add the behavior of Prosecutor Jeff Ashton during the defense's closing comments was nothing short of bizarre. Hard to believe he was a seasoned veteran of the courtroom.

Didn't watch & haven't read anything on the behavior. What was up?

earlywinegareth
07-06-2011, 12:03 PM
Ashton snickering in his seat while Baez is speaking to the jury. http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/defense-attorney-jose-baez-snaps-at-prosecutor-jeff-ashton-during-closing-arguments-at-the-casey-anthony-trial-on-july-3-2011-calling-him-laughing-guy-video

A seasoned veteran of 30 years in a murder trial acting like he's in high school?

kevinpate
07-06-2011, 12:23 PM
foolish, but noy as bad as i imagined, Certainly not the first, from either side of a case, to needlessly act out.

SOONER8693
07-06-2011, 01:20 PM
This case along with the OJ case makes a joke of the court system. Two murderers walk the streets free. That is how "the system" is supposed to work? I think not.

PennyQuilts
07-06-2011, 02:05 PM
I watched most of it. Have to accept the result but I, for one, think the prosecution proved their case but the jury insisted on having forensic evidence that didn't exist. The child was bones by the time they found her - thanks to her mother who profited by their unwillingness to go out on a limb and consider anything other than the tied with a ribbon evidence they see on television and beach novels. IMO, a complete miscarriage of justice. Unlike many, I thought this was a relatively easy case and am generally a pretty hard sell. The defense counsel told them over and over during closing that their job was to determine "how did Casey die?" Then he would suggest all the ways she "could" have died. "How did Caylee die," wasn't the question but the jury apparently thought it was. Absent practically a video tape of the murder, they weren't going to convict. I'm disgusted.

BBatesokc
07-06-2011, 02:24 PM
To Sooner8693 and PennyQuilts: Exactly what would have the standard be then - other than 'reasonable doubt'? I can't imagine a system that could convict a person of murder or even manslaughter when the prosecution can not prove how, when or where a person died. The only 'evidence' presented was how Casey acted after her child was presumably dead. Not a shred of definitive evidence was present (NONE) to show Caylee had been murdered and that Casey committed the act. Sure, common sense says she either murdered her daughter or was closely linked to the murder, but 'common sense' is not a legal argument and nor should it be. I'd rather see 50 Casey's go free than to see one innocent incarcerated or executed.

flintysooner
07-06-2011, 02:38 PM
Not a shred of definitive evidence was present (NONE) to show Caylee had been murdered and that Casey committed the act.The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide and explained the ruling rather well basing the homicide finding on context rather than physical autopsy. The defense presented another very well qualified expert who said the physical evidence could not substantiate homicide but under cross showed an alarming lack of knowledge about the context. Seemed to me the prosecution's position on homicide was the stronger and actually beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense attorneys had a terrible time asking questions which were not leading. Actually it made me feel embarrassed for Mr. Baez. In fact it was so prominent that I wondered if the defense actually made mistakes to set up an appeal.

RadicalModerate
07-06-2011, 02:57 PM
Maybe we can look forward to another book by Vincent Bugliosi, such as "Outrage" in which he skewered the prosecution of O.J. Simpson for murder . . .

MikeOKC
07-06-2011, 02:57 PM
Well Brian, I have to agree with PQ. Too many prosecutors on TV have said over and over the last few days that thousands have been sent to prison for life on much less evidence. I followed it only through daily media reports, but it sounded like the defense used the "CSI effect" with great success. Trying to raise doubt, not based on the evidence actually presented, but to raise doubt about the lack of that last five minutes of a CSI show where a clear forensic smoking gun is found. We've been conditioned to believe that we can't add 2+2+2+2+2 = 10 and find a person guilty. The CSI Effect demands the kind of evidence that, unfortunately, (because of Casey's actions), was simply not possible. But the evidence presented sure seemed to point to guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, this jury, for whatever reason went the other direction. I agree with those who say it's because of the reasons cited above.

BBatesokc
07-06-2011, 03:10 PM
The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide and explained the ruling rather well basing the homicide finding on context rather than physical autopsy. The defense presented another very well qualified expert who said the physical evidence could not substantiate homicide but under cross showed an alarming lack of knowledge about the context. Seemed to me the prosecution's position on homicide was the stronger and actually beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense attorneys had a terrible time asking questions which were not leading. Actually it made me feel embarrassed for Mr. Baez. In fact it was so prominent that I wondered if the defense actually made mistakes to set up an appeal.

A ruling of 'homicide' based solely on the actions of the mother and how the body was found is flimsy at best - as echoed by the jury's verdict.

BBatesokc
07-06-2011, 03:19 PM
Well Brian, I have to agree with PQ. Too many prosecutors on TV have said over and over the last few days that thousands have been sent to prison for life on much less evidence. I followed it only through daily media reports, but it sounded like the defense used the "CSI effect" with great success. Trying to raise doubt, not based on the evidence actually presented, but to raise doubt about the lack of that last five minutes of a CSI show where a clear forensic smoking gun is found. We've been conditioned to believe that we can't add 2+2+2+2+2 = 10 and find a person guilty. The CSI Effect demands the kind of evidence that, unfortunately, (because of Casey's actions), was simply not possible. But the evidence presented sure seemed to point to guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, this jury, for whatever reason went the other direction. I agree with those who say it's because of the reasons cited above.

You mean like Star Jones (sigh). We used to hang suspected criminals on hunches too but that doesn't mean we didn't progress away from the practice. I can't speak to recent cases when I don't know what specific cases you are referring to. This thread is about the Casey Anthony case and our system doesn't allow (nor should it) for the comparison of one case vs. another to arrive at a verdict. I also don't buy your argument about the "CSI Effect.' I don't for one second think Casey was innocent, mostly due to the circumstantial evidence presented, however, I still would not have voted for guilty because the prosecution did not meet their obligation. An obligation that strives to ensure that others are not convicted on "you should have acted this way ... or, that way."

MikeOKC
07-06-2011, 03:22 PM
A ruling of 'homicide' based solely on the actions of the mother and how the body was found is flimsy at best - as echoed by the jury's verdict.

There was more than that. The blanket that Casey told her mom was with Caylee (she wouldn't sleep without it) and that Caylee was with her out-of-town. These things, said before Casey was arrested and everybody had a chance to get their ducks in a row. The blanket, of course, was found with Caylee's bones.

The diary entry where she talked about the new life she had and how she think she had done the right thing for everyone. What was she talking about? They tried to say it was written in '03 until the FBI came back with evidence that that particular notebook wasn't made before 2004.

Her lies to her parents, her friends, her making people up out of whole cloth, her behavior - knowing Caylee was "missing" DOES say a lot according to the behavioral psychiatrist one or two of those things can be overlooked - but the month-long pattern was overwhelming.

I have to agree with the other prosecutors who observed this trial and said thousands have been sent away with much, much less.

BBatesokc
07-06-2011, 03:27 PM
There was more than that. The blanket that Casey told her mom was with Caylee (she wouldn't sleep without it) and that Caylee was with her out-of-town. These things, said before Casey was arrested and everybody had a chance to get their ducks in a row. The blanket, of course, was found with Caylee's bones.

The diary entry where she talked about the new life she had and how she think she had done the right thing for everyone. What was she talking about? They tried to say it was written in '03 until the FBI came back with evidence that that particular notebook wasn't made before 2004.

Her lies to her parents, her friends, her making people up out of whole cloth, her behavior - knowing Caylee was "missing" DOES say a lot according to the behavioral psychiatrist one or two of those things can be overlooked - but the month-long pattern was overwhelming.

I have to agree with the other prosecutors who observed this trial and said thousands have been sent away with much, much less.

I watched the entire trial also and all they proved is that she's a liar - which she was convicted of. The rest is unfortunately nothing more than odd behavior when not combined with actual real evidence.

MikeOKC
07-06-2011, 03:29 PM
I watched the entire trial also and all they proved is that she's a liar - which she was convicted of. The rest is unfortunately nothing more than odd behavior when not combined with actual real evidence.

Good people can disagree. I know you're 'good people' - so we'll just disagree. I am guessing this back and forth is playing out all across the country today.

flintysooner
07-06-2011, 04:00 PM
Trying only to base my conclusions on evidence the jury had I was first persuaded that the death was a homicide. I thought there was evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt to support that. And it did seem to me that the prosecution experts were generally more credible.

Given that I had concluded homicide the next question for me was who committed it. There was never another person introduced besides the defendant. And that includes by the defense. In their most prominent theory the death was accidental and covered up by Casey and her father. So even in the defense theory the mother, Casey, was in custody of the child. So I concluded casey.

But the jury was apparently never persuaded that it was a homicide in the first place. Given that it is certainly reasonable to reach the verdict

Thunder
07-06-2011, 04:34 PM
Hi Brian :LolLolLol http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26369



Whether she did it or not, this psycho didn't report her "missing" 2 year old for a month and partied during this time. She deserves life in prison for that alone (the not reporting). I have no doubt that this crazy biotch will rot in Hell. Maybe somebody will use chloroform on her and throw her in the trunk for a while. Then they can borrow the neighbor's shovel for an hour to bury her.

I can agree the prosecution didn't prove it. They proved she's a disgusting person. I wonder what the verdict would have been if she was a man or a minority

Lets see here... I know of a true story where these two girls took a girl to a location on the mountains to simply scare her. A fight broke out between the two girls and one was accidentally killed. It was an accident and had she reported in the first place, no charges or anything would have been filed. Well, the girl panicked and wanted to hide the body, the other girl wanted to call the police. Both argued for a while before eventually the lifeless body was hidden out of pure panicking fear. The girl that wanted to report it was pressured and under the influence to keep it hidden/secret. Situation spiraled out of control...blah blah blah.

Okay, lets look at the situation revolving around Casey, Caylee, the parents, and possibly other people involved. Caylee died an accidental death...not murder. Casey's father (and possibly the mother, too) panicked and wanted to protect Casey from wrongful accusations...wrongful arrest...wrongful court trial...wrongful prison time...blah blah blah. So, these people wanted to control the situation and conceal it out of panicking fear all the while of ensuring Casey that it all will be okay and that the situation will be dealt with. Then something went wrong....spiraled out of control.

Just because Casey didn't report anything (I believe this was one of the counts she was guilty of?) doesn't make her bad. She was scared. She was pressured to stay silence. I bet she wanted the truth out, but was somehow held back. So, no, this does not warrant life in prison...what a joke of a comment that is. Why would someone need to resort to the use of Chloroform? On a baby? Not a single person need it as its so frickin easy to hold a baby down, choke the life out of her...if that was the case of murder. So... Chloroform discovered on a computer? Planted by law enforcement.

The DA proved nothing. The DA did not prove Casey to be a disgusting person. I have seen many videos of Casey and Caylee together. Does that imply that Casey want nothing to do with Caylee? No. She isn't a perfect mother, but she is not a bad mother. We all go out to parties...drinking...having a good time. Does that make us all bad? No. So, stop trying to turn stupid things into something on Casey that is actually not, geez.



I'm going to say something controversial. Why do we require people to be a certain age and pass a written and practical test to drive a car, yet we allow people to breed indiscriminately? If I were the judge, I would have sentenced her to a tubal ligation. She has proven to the world that she isn't qualified to be a mother. Why is it an inalienable right to produce unwanted children who end up being abused and sometimes murdered?

Casey did not prove to the world that she is not a qualified mother. There is nothing whatsoever that even hint that she is an unfit mother. Maybe a lack of experience, but with Caylee....Casey is a first time mommy. Learning? Of course. Casey was still young, too. Just because Casey do personal things on her own time doesn't mean she loved Caylee any less. I know that Casey loves Caylee. At times it can be frustrating being bound with a child 24/7, which is understandable...we all go through it. So, stop singling out Casey.


Yep.

It's very obvious she had something to do with that child's death but the evidence was pretty shaky.

Incorrect. However, you did say "child's death" instead of murder. Casey may have a part in Caylee's death, which is purely accidental. How? Well, she diverted her attention for a moment too long when Caylee drowned. Happens to us all. Happened to my mom, but did that make her a bad mom? No. Mistakes happen when we least expect it. We may never know exactly what happened, but with intelligent and common sense, smart people should have a clear understanding of what happened.


I watched most of it. Have to accept the result but I, for one, think the prosecution proved their case but the jury insisted on having forensic evidence that didn't exist. The child was bones by the time they found her - thanks to her mother who profited by their unwillingness to go out on a limb and consider anything other than the tied with a ribbon evidence they see on television and beach novels. IMO, a complete miscarriage of justice. Unlike many, I thought this was a relatively easy case and am generally a pretty hard sell. The defense counsel told them over and over during closing that their job was to determine "how did Casey die?" Then he would suggest all the ways she "could" have died. "How did Caylee die," wasn't the question but the jury apparently thought it was. Absent practically a video tape of the murder, they weren't going to convict. I'm disgusted.

The DA did not prove their case. Forensics evidence is very important. Without it, most cases are very hard to prove, but there are other ways to prove with concrete evidence. There was none in this case. Nothing linked Casey to the trunk, nothing linked Casey to the trash bags, duct tapes, other items, and nothing linked Casey to the discovery location. Why? Casey was not there. Period.

Penny, the truth, you will have to accept this, is that there was no miscarriage of the justice system. Yes, that is the truth. Casey was wrongly arrested, denied bail (?), and forced through the whole trial ordeal. That was a failed system for three long years. Karma sicked it back at them and now Casey goes rightfully free. Divine intervention of God? Yes, if you believe in religion.

Do not be disgusted. Be thankful and keep Casey in your prayers.


The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide and explained the ruling rather well basing the homicide finding on context rather than physical autopsy. The defense presented another very well qualified expert who said the physical evidence could not substantiate homicide but under cross showed an alarming lack of knowledge about the context. Seemed to me the prosecution's position on homicide was the stronger and actually beyond reasonable doubt.

The defense attorneys had a terrible time asking questions which were not leading. Actually it made me feel embarrassed for Mr. Baez. In fact it was so prominent that I wondered if the defense actually made mistakes to set up an appeal.

I missed the ME's ruling part, but I find this laughable. It was reported that Caylee's body was completely skeletal. (wow, a body can discompose that fast...) So, we have Caylee's body completely skeletal, that means there is no tissues and no internal organs. ME ruled it a homicide? LOL!!! I wonder why... Oh, the duct tape! LOL!!! Lame ME, seriously.

Sorry to bust your bubble, cuz the DA failed hardcore. It only increases the reasonable doubt. Wrapped in trash bags with duct taps on her face can not be ruled a homicide. Why? The body was handled for quite some time before the claimed "discovery" at a suspicious location that was already searched previously. The meter man? What was he doing out there? No meters, right. He don't service that area, right. He magically knew where to discover Caylee? LOL!!! He had inside contact(s) with the law enforcement with someone on the inside overhearing the conversations between the family and lawyers of Caylee's burial location. It was overheard and secretly spread around until it reached to some guys, including the meter man, to dig up Caylee's body, held onto it for quite some time, and most likely put her body in trash bags and applied duct tapes to make it appear like a murder. They were trying to implicate Casey to be the murderer of Caylee.

*sighs* Am I the only one here actually smart about it all? :-/

MikeOKC
07-06-2011, 04:52 PM
Your last line? Yes, I have to admit, "Smart Thunder" makes an appearance. I think you're smitten with the whole Casey/Caylee fantasy relationship. The interviews with neighbors after the verdict was enlightening. A good relationship? A good mother? Really?

If it was all an accident, what do people do? Call 911 immediately. If they were covering up an accident, why did it end up breaking the family apart? Defense allegations of sexual abuse and going through everything that almost drove George to commit suicide. At some point, early on, there would have been a break-down with the "I'm sorry's" and then it becomes just a horrible, tragic accident. To take it all the way to a capital murder trial? Nope.

Planted evidence? You were talking about lies and innuendos...where's the evidence for that?

Jersey Boss
07-06-2011, 05:15 PM
I am curious as to how often a change of venue results in a verdict that is not what the state sought. Is a jury that is seated from an elected DA's jurisdiction more favorable to the prosecutor that they helped elect? As I recall the OJ case, as well as the Anthony case used a jury from outside the prosecutors jurisdiction. The bigger question being is does the state have an unfair advantage when jury members endorsed the prosecutor at the ballot box.

BayAreaOkie
07-06-2011, 07:43 PM
Oh. My. God. Please tell me that this is a joke reply -- especially ending with the fact that you seemed so disturbed that you think you are actually 'smart about it all'. Because if not, your uncanny ability to completely spin an absolutely ridiculous diatribe about things that you have absolutely no idea, is something that legends are made of. I won't even spend time pointing out all of the unsupported statements that you try to pass off as truth, because between your 'wrongly arrested' and your meter man conspiracy theory... I have to keep telling myself this is a joke.

kevinpate
07-06-2011, 08:24 PM
I am curious as to how often a change of venue results in a verdict that is not what the state sought. Is a jury that is seated from an elected DA's jurisdiction more favorable to the prosecutor that they helped elect? As I recall the OJ case, as well as the Anthony case used a jury from outside the prosecutors jurisdiction. The bigger question being is does the state have an unfair advantage when jury members endorsed the prosecutor at the ballot box.

The venue is changed so seldom I am not certain any significance could be attributed to a change in any home court advantage for the prosecution.

PennyQuilts
07-06-2011, 08:33 PM
To Sooner8693 and PennyQuilts: Exactly what would have the standard be then - other than 'reasonable doubt'? I can't imagine a system that could convict a person of murder or even manslaughter when the prosecution can not prove how, when or where a person died. The only 'evidence' presented was how Casey acted after her child was presumably dead. Not a shred of definitive evidence was present (NONE) to show Caylee had been murdered and that Casey committed the act. Sure, common sense says she either murdered her daughter or was closely linked to the murder, but 'common sense' is not a legal argument and nor should it be. I'd rather see 50 Casey's go free than to see one innocent incarcerated or executed.

I disagree. In addition to the forensic evidence that remained available, the type of circumstantial evidence provided was overwhelming. Until the days when people began thinking physical evidence/DNA was required, multitudes upon multitudes of convictions were achieved. From law school, I recall whole sections on traditional circumstantial evidence that juries in the past have had no problem taking seriously. With this sort of mentality, you couldn't even get a conviction, EVER, if there was no body and no eye witnesses or verified confessions. That's insane.

If this case only relied on the forensic evidence, I could see where this was a battle of experts and would better understand the jury's verdict. But you aren't supposed to rely on experts unless it is in an area that the jury is not equipped to understand. The jury is certainly able, in its common experience, to know that how the woman behaved was utterly inconsistent with a drowning. For that matter, there was absolutely no evidence of a drowning, either. In the absence of that, they would just be speculating. At that point, the burden shifted to the defense. Absent an explanation that made sense, she should have been convicted. You don't just throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, ain't it a shame." What the hell good is a jury if they aren't willing to apply common sense?

The fact that they couldn't find cause of death is a red herring. The body was NOT consistent with a drowing. The body was completely consistent with a body being hidden - which is evidence of guilt. There are many murders committed in which we don't know the exact circumstances. But for anyone to demand that the prosecution be able to show the manner of death under these circumstances - circumstances that were the direct result of the mother lying about the whereabouts of the child - is outrageous. They're right - they don't know exactly how she died. She could have been stabbed, she could have been drowned in a toilet, she could have been smothered, she could have died from old age, she could have had her neck broken. It doesn't matter. It is completely unreasonable for this mother to have not reported the disapperance of her child for over a month, followed by outrageous lies for months and months while her daughter rotted in a swamp with duct tape over her mouth - especially when the lies were given to hide the fact that the child was dead. Are you kidding me? All of that is easily evidence of guilt and in the complete absence of a psychological report from someone who actually evaluated her to explain away her behavior, they should have convicted.

People don't act that way when they aren't guilty or nuts. The defense didn't rebut that. Juries are supposed to be able to apply common life experience - it is why we have the jury system. This jury simply ignored common sense and as a result, Casey got away with murder.

Thunder
07-06-2011, 08:52 PM
Penny, you still are not listening. *sighs*

Everyone behave differently after a tragic event. You can not expect for everyone to act the same. You be very surprised how erratic an innocent person can be. I wouldn't even know what I would be doing if something were to happen. People really need to stop assuming this and that about Casey. Very close-minded that I witness among these comments.

There was no evidence of drowning... duh... because the body was already completely (?) decomposed. No skin, tissues, and internal organs available enough to determine. So, since there is a lack of evidence to present for drowning, does that mean Caylee did not drown? No!!! If she was stabbed, it would highly be likely to discover marks on the bones. Any such stabbing discovery? No!!!


The body was completely consistent with a body being hidden - which is evidence of guilt.

LOL!!! The area was thoroughly searched and Caylee was not found. Fast forward to the future, the meter man magically found Caylee in a previously searched area. Lets see... The meter man just somehow magically go out there...a place where there is no meters....and he claimed to have been working. He claimed to have gone out there to pee. But... *gasps* He mentioned previous or afterward (?) of being afraid to go into the wood...because...of...snakes. Then what was he doing out there in the wood in the first place?! Something is not right....

Like I said, I caught the mention of the meter man having inside contact (wife, friend, in-law or something, can't remember exactly) and info spread among some people when one overheard the family informing their lawyers of where Caylee was buried. Info overheard, kept hidden, and someone (probably the meter man and whoever others) went out to dig up Caylee, handled her body for a long time, then made it look like Casey murdered that poor soul. Caylee's body was tampered and fixed to make it look like murder. Blame Casey for that? No!!!

...

If I was in a fight with someone and that person had a knife and somehow the struggle for the knife ended up with that person being stabbed. What am I to do? Uhhhhhhhhh.... I would be scared. Why? Well... geez... What ya think? I have already witnessed how law enforcement are corrupted (ex: Del City). I'll probably hide the body and cover it up. Does that mean I murdered that person? No!!! If I'm questioned by the police...what would I do? I'd lie, of course. Does that make me a murderer? No!!! Then..... what if forensics/DNA evidence linked me to the body... uh oh.... Since I lied to the police... What will they be thinking? That I murder him! OMG!!! But did I murder him? No!!! Then here I go thru trial trying to prove my innocence. Then everyone on OKCTalk will be shouting "THUNDER'S A MURDERER! MURDERER!!!" .... Frightening, eh? Oh, what would I be doing in between the accidental death and police arrest? Most likely at a club, drinking, trying to get my mind off of it, dance with whoever, get loose, blah blah blah... Make me a bad person? No!!! Only mistake I would have been making was covering up the accident out of fear and lying to the police. That is what I believe the Jury in this case saw it to be.

MikeOKC
07-06-2011, 08:55 PM
The fact that they couldn't find cause of death is a red herring.

Absolutely agree 100%. I've heard prosecutors all day talking about how hundreds of murder 1 cases are successfully prosecuted without any body at all! When there's no body whatsoever, you certainly can't be specific about the manner of death. So, if that's what prevented a conviction - and it apparently was the key thing according to this juror who is speaking - that's nuts.

Penny said it very well, I just wanted to point out the "no body" convictions that obviously can't show a manner of death. Especially when there's so much "I think she's guilty but they couldn't even tell us how she died," talk going on.

Oh, and Thunder: if it was the meter man, why wasn't the defense and the family pointing a finger from the get-go and demanding justice? It was never a serious possibility. Instead we heard this web of lies from Casey that kept changing. SHE obviously was never worried about the meter man. She had already spread all these lies that kept anybody from finding little Caylee until a month later.

flintysooner
07-06-2011, 08:59 PM
Not to mention the issue of whether or not it is even possible for a 30 month old toddler to die without a custodial adult having some sort of responsibility.

Thunder
07-06-2011, 09:09 PM
And I want to mention about the verdict aftermath.

A verdict was reached. No going back. No changing it. Whatever Casey was to do will not change the verdict. She could have be all happy, smiling, in a weird way as a real murderer would be. Ya'all know that, right? Ya'all know how real murderers will be. Okay, look at Casey very carefully. She was shaking after the verdict was read. She was crying. SHE HAD NO REASON TO ACT!!! Really take a hard look at Casey's reaction. It truly say a lot that she is not a murderer.

flintysooner
07-06-2011, 09:11 PM
Her letters written during confinement indicate her desire for more children.

Thunder
07-06-2011, 09:20 PM
Absolutely agree 100%. I've heard prosecutors all day talking about how hundreds of murder 1 cases are successfully prosecuted without any body at all! When there's no body whatsoever, you certainly can't be specific about the manner of death. So, if that's what prevented a conviction - and it apparently was the key thing according to this juror who is speaking - that's nuts.

Penny said it very well, I just wanted to point out the "no body" convictions that obviously can't show a manner of death. Especially when there's so much "I think she's guilty but they couldn't even tell us how she died," talk going on.

Oh, and Thunder: if it was the meter man, why wasn't the defense and the family pointing a finger from the get-go and demanding justice? It was never a serious possibility. Instead we heard this web of lies from Casey that kept changing. SHE obviously was never worried about the meter man. She had already spread all these lies that kept anybody from finding little Caylee until a month later.

Except this case is different, Mike, the Jurors saw conflicting events that was unfolding throughout the series that was seriously questioning. All that I have stated, and then so much more. All of these goes thru the mind of those Jurors and they consider it all very carefully. They could have easily declared Casey guilty among with the majority of the people on this planet, but they did not. What they did instead is more along the line of my thinking and then more to do with the job they were instructed to do.

Mike, I can't explain for Casey's random and erratic lies and such, but I can understand her when she is under pressure from her family...lawyers...it can be so extremely daunting. A simple truth, but that is rare to come out of a person so afraid of what is going on. Casey actually wanted to testify, but her lawyers advised her not to. She fought back, her lawyers filed a motion to declare her incompetent to continue. Casey was found competent and she was happy to won against her lawyers to testify. Well... I dunno what happened that got her to change her mind not to testify in the end, but the fact remains that Casey was dead-set wanting to testify. Oh, anyone remember that evil Nancy Grace woman? She twisted details claiming that Casey was trying to declare herself incompetent. LOL! This is what I am seeing...too many people are brainwashed by the evil media. That is the sad truth.

I don't know why the family didn't wage war on the meter man...law enforcement...and others involved. Most likely because they were so heavily focused on Casey's trial to prove innocence. Not everything goes the way we normally expect. Maybe it the lawyers kept advising against this and that.

Who was it that wanted to borrow a shovel? Why borrow a shovel to only dump Caylee? She was properly buried, even though it was hidden and secretive, but someone came along and dug up Caylee and tampered with her body and tried to implicate Casey.

Thunder
07-06-2011, 09:29 PM
Her letters written during confinement indicate her desire for more children.

Exactly. People think Casey didn't want Caylee, because Casey wanted to have a free life without being restrained with 24/7 responsibility of caring for a child. How wrong everyone are!!! Casey expressed her desire to have more children. If she did not want Caylee...murdered Caylee...then she wouldn't even express desire to have more children. Fact remains, Casey was a good mother. Yes, she made mistakes, but she learned from those and will grow from it. If I was living in the neighborhood with Casey, I'd be 100% (plus) supportive of Casey and willing to assist when she has more children. Casey is 25 and she is getting older and will be more responsible. Everyone will move on and forget about this whole tragic 3 years of hell.

PennyQuilts
07-06-2011, 09:42 PM
What color is the sun in your world, sweetie?

Thunder
07-06-2011, 09:44 PM
What color is the sun in your world, sweetie?

Yellow/orange, something like that.

betts
07-07-2011, 12:04 AM
Ack. Some people should never have children and she's the poster "child". People without a conscience don't ever grow up or grow out of it.

rcjunkie
07-07-2011, 12:43 AM
What color is the sun in your world, sweetie?

I think it depends on what world he wakes up in, it's changes each and every day. Lately it's been la la land.

BBatesokc
07-07-2011, 07:02 AM
FYI - Casey's sentencing is happening live now.

She could be released or serve some more time (Could get a couple more years for her convictions for lying - she also has a conviction for a bad check charge she already pled guilty to). She could also be fined during this sentence.

BBatesokc
07-07-2011, 07:36 AM
Looks like Casey will be an inmate for at least a couple more weeks. Judge's best guess right now is late July to Mid August for release. Judge is also taking up to 60-days to calculate any costs to be imposed on Casey.

PennyQuilts
07-07-2011, 08:00 AM
Looks like Casey will be an inmate for at least a couple more weeks. Judge's best guess right now is late July to Mid August for release. Judge is also taking up to 60-days to calculate any costs to be imposed on Casey.

I hope they throw the book at her on the costs to the county that arose as a result of her behavior. She will be cashing in and seems like she ought to pay for some of the financial damages she caused. I imagine she's all but bankrupted her parents, too, but that is the least of their worries when you consider how this kid has brought misery upon them.

earlywinegareth
07-07-2011, 08:34 AM
Exactly. People think Casey didn't want Caylee, because Casey wanted to have a free life without being restrained with 24/7 responsibility of caring for a child. How wrong everyone are!!! Casey expressed her desire to have more children. If she did not want Caylee...murdered Caylee...then she wouldn't even express desire to have more children. Fact remains, Casey was a good mother. Yes, she made mistakes, but she learned from those and will grow from it. If I was living in the neighborhood with Casey, I'd be 100% (plus) supportive of Casey and willing to assist when she has more children. Casey is 25 and she is getting older and will be more responsible. Everyone will move on and forget about this whole tragic 3 years of hell.

R U serious? Wanting children does not make a person a good parent! People act this way all the time when it comes to having children & pets. They want the feeling of importance and love, but are repulsed by the work, sacrifice, and maturity required to be a good parent. When the burden of reality hits, they want nothing to do with it. Then you have abandoned children and pets for the rest of society to deal with.

Jersey Boss
07-07-2011, 08:40 AM
While it is understandable at the outrage and heated opinions of a possible guilty defendent being freed, I am more outraged at the possibility of not only a possibly innocent man being executed, but at the action of the Governor of Texas to railroad the man to his execution. Sickening. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7122381.html

kevinpate
07-07-2011, 10:23 AM
A Florida judge on Thursday sentenced Casey Anthony to four years in jail for lying to police after her daughter disappeared, but she will be released from custody next week after getting credit for time served and good behavior. Court officials said Anthony, 25, will be let out of jail on July 13, having received 1,043 days credit for the time she spent behind bars since her arrest.
Anthony was acquitted on Tuesday of killing her 2-year-old daughter Caylee in 2008 but on Thursday received the toughest possible punishment for providing false information to law enforcement during the investigation.
Each of the four misdemeanor counts Anthony was convicted of carried a maximum of one year in jail. Judge Belvin Perry ordered the one-year terms to run consecutively, and also imposed a $1,000 fine for each count.

http://news.yahoo.com/jurors-cried-felt-sick-acquitting-anthony-012228871.html

PennyQuilts
07-07-2011, 10:33 AM
R U serious? Wanting children does not make a person a good parent! People act this way all the time when it comes to having children & pets. They want the feeling of importance and love, but are repulsed by the work, sacrifice, and maturity required to be a good parent. When the burden of reality hits, they want nothing to do with it. Then you have abandoned children and pets for the rest of society to deal with.

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of abused children were the result of wanted pregnancies in which the parents-to-be were pregnant for all the wrong reasons, didn't understand the demands of parenthood and, especially, thought a baby would make them be the center of attention and otherwise fill their black hole of emotional needs. Give me a thoughtful, realistic parent-to-be who has mixed feelings about a pregnancy over an idiot who thinks babies are their ticket to happiness, anyday.

(I don't lump the ones who really want a baby and have thought it through for reasons that benefit the child in with the idiots).

Casey isn't even married or stable enough to care for a child at this point. People like that are enough to make pregnant women be scared to death to give their child up to someone for a closed adoption.

lake hefner breeze
07-07-2011, 10:45 AM
I have always believed that people living in Orlando are not mental giants...and this verdict proves it.

As far as tot mom goes, where's a vigilante when you need one?

flintysooner
07-07-2011, 10:49 AM
Somewhere I read about psychopathic behavior of treating children much like pets who always give unconditional love to their owner. But when the child begins to individuate and no longer gives the parent the expected unconditional love and adoration the parent's reaction is one of tremendous disappointment and disillusionment.

Jersey Boss
07-07-2011, 11:05 AM
I have always believed that people living in Orlando are not mental giants...and this verdict proves it.

As far as tot mom goes, where's a vigilante when you need one?

The jury was made up of people who lived in the Tampa area, so your observation is moot.

"The law... will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations and wanton tempers of men... On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the populace." - John Adams in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, December 4, 1770

People need to remember and live by these words.