Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[LisaR]

It looks like this movement is actually going to go forward. There is already a representative drafting legislation.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...online-petition-builds-interest-after-verdict

It is so sad that we have to make laws like this. I wonder if Cindy will support it?

 

[hambirg]

You're right! We don't know when she dumped the body, and neither does the jury. That's a problem, when the State asked them to know whether or not Caycee was guilty. Even after 2 days in the trunk of a car that would have become an OVEN in the Florida Heat, that body would have been reeking. Decomposition starts immediately.

And here's another strange point: Maria testified that she and Clint rode to dinner in the backseat of Casey's car, after Casey had moved in at Tony's and Caylee had gone missing. The carseat would have had to have been taken out of the backseat for two adults to have enough room to ride to dinner. When the Anthony's picked up the car at the tow yard, the carseat was positioned in the backseat with Caylee's baby doll in it.
So, after Caycee killed Caylee, she took the time to hook the carseat back up in the car?

No problem at all. You do not have to know when a body was dumped to know if a crime happened. They don't know when Bundy built his shrine of skulls on Tiger Mountain. . .doesn't prove he didn't kill those woman in ANY way! You don't have to even know exactly when a crime occurred to know that it did, in fact, occur.

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Dollars to donuts, ABC paid for the trip--maybe they get an employee discount, but I seriously doubt that the resorts and ticket counter had any control on saying--NO, do not give it to THAT person.


Of course, I do not know without a shadow of a doubt that that is how it works...but I'm pretty positive that ABC doesn't call the CEO or whatever the top position is at WDW and begs permission to give away freebie trips.

My guess is as good as your's and I am pretty positive that's correct. Besides, unless any details about this "trip" have been put out there that I haven't read yet, remember this woman is from Pinellas County. About an hour and a half away from WDW. ABC could have thrown 4 MYW passes at her for all I know, no resort and dining package required. You can get the same deal at any number of time shares in the Orlando area for listening to their presentation for a few hours.

 

[joviroxx]

Exactly--

It seems they considered items as proof that they were not to consider as evidence at all.

I really think the character assassination of George went beyond the scope of proving reasonable doubt and essentially put George on trial without due process.

The judge even declared that Baez did not prove what he accused George of.

What I don't understand--and perhaps those satisfied with the jurors decision would join in a sidebar discussion on why or why not it is acceptable to make accusations of George as a defense with ZERO evidence to back it up. Was his right to due process violated? Is it okay to make accusations (of any sort) of another citizen an acceptable manner of defense?

I don't think so--my DH disagrees. Even when I tried to paint a picture...of how it would be possible for someone to do the same to him, or me, or you.

I just wonder--when did this become an acceptable defense strategy and is it constitutionally sound?

Thanks for indulging in that sidebar topic.

I wish I knew the answer and would love to join such a discussion.

 

[usnuzuloose]

One of the things that bother me about Casey is she will not feel guilty about killing her child. She has lied so much, and lying is second nature to her, she believes her own lies. She feels she is the victim. This will not bother her. She will get out, live her life and not think twice about her little girl. She'll disappear and be as happy as she was for those 31 days after she killed her daughter.

This verdict has gotten me so upset and I don't even know these people!

A mother who has gotten away with murder, cries fake tears, never mourned for her daughter , partied day and night, mom finds her to bring her home and asks for one more day. Now upon leaving jail probably only thinks about how much money she will make and not even caring her ATTORNEY IS MAKING MONEY FROM HER DAUGHTER. That is disgusting. So how much does she care? She threw everyone under the bus. You watch at someone point she will have had her fill with Baez as well.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Mare? Answer yet?

They're on the way to their 3:30 appt now. I'll be the first to know, per her text!

Of course not....not the 7/11 but if you indulge in the night life well that is another story.

If any of you Florida people are in any hot body contests with her, let us know! (And I hope you win! )

Also, I was thinking about this scenerio and don't know if it had ever came up in discussion. Just say IF she didn't do it (I totally believe she is guilty), but let's just humor ourselves and say IF she didn't, could someone have set her up? Surely with all the partying, the sexing, drinking, etc., I'm sure she probably made a few enemies. I imagine she probably went after some boyfriends that weren't "hers".

Then where did she think Caylee was for those 31 days, why didn't she care, and what was the BS opening statement by the defense about the drowning on June 16?

Oh I'm not afraid of running into her. I don't hang out at night clubs, strip clubs, Blockbuster, Tony's apartment, Jose Baez's office, or anywhere else a baby killer may potentially go. I'm just sick that she will be walking.

OK, Conservative Hippie is out of the hot body contest. Anyone in?

I realize its the juror's choice, but Im conflicted about this.

First, you have George. These jurors have people believing George is an abuser and has something to do with this. Part of me thinks they owe him an explanation. You just can't hit and run.

Second, part of me has a nagging issue with the whole, don't release my name, but I will release it for a price!

The only reason I think they shouldn't be released is that , in this case, there are too many really unstable people out there that can be dangerous. Media is out of control and it really might be a safety issue.

I agree. Mixed feelings.

How did you get any of that from what I posted?


The legal system is more complicated than it used to be--I didn't say do away from a jury of your peers nor suggesting killing innocent people or hanging 7 year olds.

...

However, if you read that I want to kill 7 year olds for stealing....there ain't much I can do about that level of misunderstanding.

I agree. That was a rather bizarre response.

But based on some of your other statements, I'd also like to point out that the defense does not have to prove their case. It's almost as if you are implying that there should have been a guilty verdict just because the defense didn't prove she was innocent or that someone else was guilty.

The defense made opening statements making despicable accusations against people (George, Roy Kronk) that were NOT proven in any way, shape or form during the trial. They did not have to offer a defense...but they did, at the expense of other people's reputations with NO PROOF.

Maybe I am just trying to make excuses for Disney but I am guessing/hoping they didn't have anything to do with the deal. I am assuming Juror #3 contacted ABC or they contacted her and she said she would do the interview if they sent her to Disney. ABC probably jumped at that opportunity since they have a lot of comp tickets they can hand out and they have an "in" with reservations.

I just wish she had asked for a gift card from Brains-R-Us instead. She could have had her brain updated with a comprehension chip!

What bothers me is that it would have "looked" better had they not made any connection to DisneyWorld. Either way, she's getting paid, and will have to pay taxes on the income, whether it's money paid or a vacation paid. They should not have associated anything about CHILD killing with a trip to Disney (if that's what they did...going by what's been posted on this thread; I didn't see anything about it in the news).

Just want to say that I enjoyed the posts about buns and puns and 10 ft poles.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It looks like this movement is actually going to go forward. There is already a representative drafting legislation.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...online-petition-builds-interest-after-verdict

It is so sad that we have to make laws like this. I wonder if Cindy will support it?

She might sue for copyright/trademark infringement for the use of Caylee's name.

 

[Mosoh]

What I don't understand--and perhaps those satisfied with the jurors decision would join in a sidebar discussion on why or why not it is acceptable to make accusations of George as a defense with ZERO evidence to back it up. Was his right to due process violated? Is it okay to make accusations (of any sort) of another citizen an acceptable manner of defense?

I don't think so--my DH disagrees. Even when I tried to paint a picture...of how it would be possible for someone to do the same to him, or me, or you.

I just wonder--when did this become an acceptable defense strategy and is it constitutionally sound?

Thanks for indulging in that sidebar topic.

May we approach

It is legal to smear anyone in a trial without fearing later legal consequences. I think this needs to change.

What bothers me it that even though Bozo in his OS mentioned a few "loaded questons/accusations", he failed to back them up with testimony and I was certain at least one juror would understand the law regarding OS is not testimony and the judges ruling the the alleged statement from Cruz was not to be used as proof of an accident By failing in that this man is now by the verdict going to have a shadow over his hear for the rest of his life. And they used false information to reach a verdict.

 

[snapppyd]

A mother who has gotten away with murder, cries fake tears, never mourned for her daughter , partied day and night, mom finds her to bring her home and asks for one more day. Now upon leaving jail probably only thinks about how much money she will make and not even caring her ATTORNEY IS MAKING MONEY FROM HER DAUGHTER. That is disgusting. So how much does she care? She threw everyone under the bus. You watch at someone point she will have had her fill with Baez as well.

How long before she claims he molested her in prison??

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Oh I'm not afraid of running into her. I don't hang out at night clubs, strip clubs, Blockbuster, Tony's apartment, Jose Baez's office, or anywhere else a baby killer may potentially go. I'm just sick that she will be walking.

Slinking, skulking, creeping, slithering better verbs to describe what she will be doing. OH wait did I mention bumping and grinding?

 

[JaneBanks]

[/B]

How long before she claims he molested her in prison??

Well.. Baez was told to stop touching Casey in the jail....

 

[brunette8706]

No problem at all. You do not have to know when a body was dumped to know if a crime happened. They don't know when Bundy built his shrine of skulls on Tiger Mountain. . .doesn't prove he didn't kill those woman in ANY way! You don't have to even know exactly when a crime occurred to know that it did, in fact, occur.

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

*
GREAT Analogy! Right on target.

 

[LisaR]

I wish I knew the answer and would love to join such a discussion.

I have great respect for Judge Perry but I expected him to say at some point to Baez that GA was not the one on trial. I thought if he threw accusations out there, he would have to back them up. I know at one point they talked about Baez getting close to shifting the burden of proof. How much closer did he need to get?

[/B]

How long before she claims he molested her in prison??

If Baez makes money off of this and Casey doesn't, I would not put this past her at all.

 

[JaneBanks]

To bring a little positivity to the thread, Elizabeth Smart will now report on missing person cases for ABC.

http://www.wesh.com/news/28475169/detail.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=wesh

 

[snapppyd]

No problem at all. You do not have to know when a body was dumped to know if a crime happened. They don't know when Bundy built his shrine of skulls on Tiger Mountain. . .doesn't prove he didn't kill those woman in ANY way! You don't have to even know exactly when a crime occurred to know that it did, in fact, occur.

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

Did you lock all the windows? Maybe the meter reader used his stick to slide the cake near the window and ate it? Then he moved the plate back into position. I bet there are crumbs in the woods Just be sure to wash the plate, he probably peed on it!

 

[Samba]

It is so disgusting and hard to come to terms with. A felon and unrepentant child killer walks. Evidently lying in court and perjury are no big deal. Our jury system results in a jury that can't deliberate its way out of a paper bag.

Children's rights have a ways to go in our society. We should work to their good.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

May we approach

It is legal to smear anyone in a trial without fearing later legal consequences. I think this needs to change.

What bothers me it that even though Bozo in his OS mentioned a few "loaded questons/accusations", he failed to back them up with testimony and I was certain at least one juror would understand the law regarding OS is not testimony and the judges ruling the the alleged statement from Cruz was not to be used as proof of an accident By failing in that this man is now by the verdict going to have a shadow over his hear for the rest of his life. And they used false information to reach a verdict.

One of the Talking Head attorneys mentioned that one of the problems with the US legal system (forgive me for not recalling if she was pro-defense/pro-prosecution/neutraul)---is that attorneys in the position of Baez cannot be sued for statements they make that are false.

Jose could have gotten up there in open and mentioned ANY ONE OF OUR NAMES--if Casey said so--not backed it up, subpoena'd (sp?) us--dragged our reputations through the mud...and we would have no legal recourse.

Now, granted--he is doing it with people that Casey knew....but there is no recourse for a damaged reputation as there would be if a private citizen did that.

Take the Zaneida lawsuit--she can sue Casey, because Casey said those things and may have a very good case.

But if Zaneida was never mentioned until open--she couldn't do a thing to Baez and due to the attorney/client privilege, couldn't get anything out of Casey.

In that regard, Zaneida got lucky. She has some recourse for what was said about her. (my understanding is that there were so few people with that name and the fact that she had gone to Sawgrass ahead of Casey--that logic prevails that ZG was the source of the definitive name for the nanny).

Not that George would sue--if he could, he might....

But there is no recourse for the character assasination.

The TH feels that this should not be a privilege of attorneys when no evidence is present.

I mean--even Mackenzie Phillips didn't write about her dad until AFTER he died. So she is at liberty to divulge whatever she wants (whether true or not, only she knows). Prior to his death, it would have been a he said/she said and a legal problem, I would guess.

I would hope that George would sue for any printed statement Casey profits from on the accusation...

But the fact that Jose could sling it without any repercussions absent any evidence--the TH said that IS an issue in our legal system.

It could happen to any one of us given just the right dysfunctional defendant and opportunistic attorney.

 

[hambirg]

Another question for the Dis:
On June 15th, Cindy and Caylee visit Grandpa in the assisted living home. Cindy learns that Caycee has been stealing money from her father's account. She had been stealing from the Anthonys' account as well, but it would take longer for Cindy to discover that.
Lee said there was a huge fight that night. Cindy says that they watched videos. BUT, the jury didn't hear about that.
Caycee's hole card to stay out of trouble for felony theft was Caylee. Why would she purposely kill the only leverage she had?

Because Casey had been living an imaginary life for the last two years. . .and now Caylee was talking. Casey's whole fraud of a life was going to come to an end very soon, because Caylee was now able to verbalize and rat her out. Not that Caylee could have even began to understand the lies her mother had been telling, but she surely was going to be able to tell CA and GA and anybody else who asked that, "No Mommy was not at work. Who's Zanny? I was at Tony's with Mommy." There ya go. the stealing money was small potatoes compared to what was about to be revealed.

 

[U2_rocks!]

No problem at all. You do not have to know when a body was dumped to know if a crime happened. They don't know when Bundy built his shrine of skulls on Tiger Mountain. . .doesn't prove he didn't kill those woman in ANY way! You don't have to even know exactly when a crime occurred to know that it did, in fact, occur.

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

You're talking about means and opportunity here (I've read my share of whodunnits ). I have asked myself who else had means and opportunity in Caylee's case, and unfortunately Casey is not the only one. Because Caylee was missing for 31 days Casey had to know about her death (or have some other reason for hiding the fact that she was missing), but that does not mean she had anything to do with the actual death (one possibility is that she discovered it and helped hide it for some reason unknown to us). My point is that Casey murdering Caylee is not the only possibility. Whether these other possibilities are reasonable or not is a matter of judgement and assessment of evidence, and I can't say right now whether, if I had been sequestered and had to analyze only what was admitted into evidence, I would have made a different decision. I know I would not have gone for murder (where intent had to be proven), but manslaughter would depend on whether I felt the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Casey was responsible in some way for Caylee's death (rather than just for all the crap that came afterwards).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Did you lock all the windows? Maybe the meter reader used his stick to slide the cake near the window and ate it? Then he moved the plate back into position. I bet there are crumbs in the woods Just be sure to wash the plate, he probably peed on it!