Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Lisa loves Pooh]

A few years ago I was friends with a girl whose sister had given birth to a baby girl. The sister was attending night classes to get a degree and left her baby with the her boyfriend while she went to school. One night she came home and found the baby unresponsive and called 911. At the hospital they found that the baby had eaten toilet paper and had inhaled some. The boyfriend had left a roll in the crib.

The baby was a mess. They managed to save her but weren't sure if there would be any brain damage from the incident.

The baby was removed from the home and put in foster care. Both of them were arrested for child abuse/neglect and other things I don't remember. They reduced moms charges but she still wasn't allowed to have the baby back. She had to attend all sorts of mandatory classes. The courts had determined that she was the ultimate caregiver for the child regardless of the fact that she wasn't home.

Without knowing the case..it would seem that the reason that occurred was probably under some premise that she should have known better. Perhaps she should have used better judgement, according to authorities and the courts.


If I leave my children with someone who was trusted and vetted and then something happened, I would not necessarily be held responsible as the ultimate caregiver. Say it was with their grandparents or an aunt or uncle?

But if I leave my child with someone who has been in trouble with the law and is of questionable character in questionable conditions..then *I* as the ultimate caregiver should have known better. Say, I left my child in the caregiver of a relative with known dementia?

There probably more to the story that we don't know for the courts to draw that conclusion. It isn't as simple as leaving your child with someone over the age of 18 and your duties as caregiver are relieved.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Lisa - I was just reading the Marcia Clark article and noticed the picture from the article is one where Caylee is wearing that shirt and Casey is playing a guitar. Someone must have taken the picture so someone else had seen her in that shirt before.

Another thought I just had regarding the shorts she was wearing. Why would Casey dress Caylee in shorts that were too small for her?

I'm not really going anywhere with this, but the picture reminded me of this post.

1. While it makes for a nice smoke and mirrors campaign--the shorts must not have been too small. 24mo/3T are constructed to accommodate diapers that Caylee was no longer wearing. Pull-ups (That she was no longer wearing, but found dead in) are much thinner than a standard diaper...on those accounts, her age alone is not evidence that she no longer fit in that size clothing. But it was a wonderful trick by the defense. Ask any mother--I have 4 kids. Only my son is an age ahead in his clothing. But he was almost 11 pounds when he was born, so was pretty much an age ahead since the age of 6 months. It is EXTREMELY common--for those "suggested" sizes, to wear longer than the tag's age suggestion. In fact, MANY of us commented on it during the trial. Prior to verdict--so we aren't playing Monday Quarterback on that opinion. Very true.

My 11yo can still wear size 8 and my 8.5 yo still wears 6X.

2.As for the picture--it was taken in the ex-boyfriend's apartment (don't recall the name--but Caylee stayed there with Casey). Of course he saw Caylee in it. But he was not implicated by the state or the defense as having any involvement. Noone in the Anthony home aside from Casey--knew about that shirt. If George knew--the defense would have asked George about it. They didn't.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This one test just seems so important. And why wasn't it done...

I get they could have tested--but would the same diatomes (sp?)--little amoebas have still been around in December?

I know that amoeba counts are higher in summer weather--if they did not suspect drowning...to me a very REASONABLE assumption and have no evidence of such, they would not have grounds to get a warrant to obtain a pool sample.

I think they would have been banned by the very constitution that saved Miss Anthony to do that.

 

[chobie]

The reason this case failed is because Casey DIDN'T HAVE TO TESTIFY. I truly believe that if she did testify she would have been convicted. Why is that the law that they don't have to defend themselves? Can you imagine if she were asked "Casey why did you blamed Zaney the Nanny for taking Caylee?" All these crazy things she did went out the window and they were proof of some really bad things. She needed to explain why she lied, WHY. Why make up all these Zaney the Nanny, why say you work at Universal Studios? Why not report her missing. This needed to be asked directly to Casey.

It's the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was pretty important to our founding fathers.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

All I'm saying is, using their own words, they didn't do it within the law. That has always been my frustration.

It was a verdict reached dishonestly. I know we have no recourse, but I don't see the point in trying to justify their actions.

I agree!

If they make a confession of how they reached their verdict in a manner that contradicted law...

It makes no sense to defend their actions just because they made a sacrifice to be a juror.

That would be like ignoring a law breaking policeman and given him a break just because he makes a sacrifice and holds a title. He has to follow the law like everyone else, his title doesn't permit him to make up his own rules as he goes along.

Jury--same deal.

 

[rie'smom]

For the record I believe - she's not innocent - however I'll offer up what I believe is reasonable doubt about evidence that was presented during the trial -

The ME testifies to her findings that the duct tape was placed on the face before decomposition. This finding goes along with the prosecutions theory of it being used as a murder weapon.

Dr. Spitz testifies that he believes the duct tape was placed there after.

Two "experts" - two different conclusions. At this point I would imagine the jury would use their own common sense, life experiences, etc to come to a reasonable idea of what that conflicting testimony means to them.

If I were to do that I would have a hard time believing that the duct tape could continue to be sticky enough to stay on the body throughout decomposition but not sticky enough to contain any evidence of who put it there.

It would have been exposed to many things throughout the decomposition process as well as the elements for close to 6 months and that may have well destroyed the evidence, but I believe it would have also destroyed the stickiness.

In this trial that would mean I came up with reasonable doubt as to whether the duct tape was the murder weapon.

This testimony was the one of the 3 things that clicked for me when I realized that the jury would find Casey not guilty.

Does anyone know anything about this Dr. Baden or this procedure? Besides of course that he is the DH of an ex-defense team member.

Seems to me that the results of this would have helped the case.

Full video/transcripts-
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/casey-anthony-case-csi-look-forensic-evidence

Part of their discussion-
VAN SUSTEREN: In a perfect world with a fully professional autopsy, if you found those remains of that child six months after she died, and if it sat out in the open sun and maybe in swampy waters, is there some diagnostic test or autopsy means by which you can determine whether she died from drowning or suffocation?

BADEN: Yes, the diatoms. If she drowned, then the diatoms in the bone marrow which they examined. But they examined it for toxicology not these one-sell plans, can tell which body of water, pool, lake, and a bathtub that she may have drowned in, if she had drowned.

VAN SUSTEREN: You say diatoms. What is that, number one? And number two, you say it can tell. Are you saying it would tell with certainty?

BADEN: If it is positive, it is with certainty. Diatoms are like plankton, one-cell plants ubiquitous around the world. There are a few thousand different species. Normally, one can take water from whatever body of water and find four, five different species in the water that's like a fingerprint of the water.

If that's inhaled into the lungs, into the body, that goes by the bloodstream into the bone marrow so that after death if the bone marrow is examined and has the same five species as in the water, that indicates that child had inhaled that water and is evidence of drowning.

VAN SUSTEREN: One thing the viewers should know, and this is probably the dirty secret about trying cases, the gamesmanship between defense and prosecution. Sometimes both sides don't want a principle analyzed because they are afraid of what the result will be. In this instance this diatoms is that something every medical examiner knows about that should have been done here?

BADEN: I think all medical examiners know about it. I think it should have been done. As you indicated, maybe the prosecutor didn't want to do it. Maybe the defense didn't want to do it because they didn't want the results. But it could have been done, it should have been done and it want done.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...case-csi-look-forensic-evidence#ixzz1RWVLVmf2

This was the second Oh Oh. If the medical examiner had done the test, everyone would have known whether or not Caylee drowned. If the findings were negative for drowning, Casey would more than likely have been found guilty. One test not done made and HUGE difference.

But:
1) Plenty of expert testimony showing how it was there before decomp
2) The mandible was held together and found together with the tape on it
3) The mandible is NEVER found attached to the skull therefore testimony that the duct tape was there before decomp and was the reason it was held together
4) Defense theory was someone picked up the bones, put it all together and THEN placed the tape on it
5)expert testimony that the condition of the tape shows it had been there much longer than it would have needed to be if the defense theory was true.
6) Defense offered a 2nd theory about using to wrap the body as they Anthony family used to wrap their pets
7) Defense theories contradict each other. Which one is it?

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people seem to believe that unless the prosecution had a picture of caylee with the tape around her face before she decomposed, its not provable evidence.

This was the third. The defense had an expert who took apart the prosecution's witness on this topic and offered that the duct tape was applied after death in order to transport Caylee's skeleton. It brought up a reasonable doubt scenario.

I did not need and neither did the jury, a picture of Cayleee. What the jury and some of us needed was for the prosecution to present a convincing case
of Casey's guilt. While I believed and do believe that she is guilty, at least in part, the prosecution did not make the case for Casey's guilt.
Like him or hate him, Baez defended his client with the best experts he could find. It was a war between the experts and the defense experts refuted the prosecution's experts which is why Casey was found not guilty,

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about what I understand about the duties of a jury.

In any event, here are the jury instructions provided in this case which pertain to reasonable doubt and weighing the evidence.

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.

WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?

2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?

4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

5. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?

6. Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?

7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness' testimony?

8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

The bolded part is the crux of the pro/ con argument. The jury did not find and abiding conviction of guilt so they could not find Casey guilty.

So you agree that George knows what happened, or that no matter what time ICA got home and found her daughter missing she should have reported it. You didn't believe anything George said on the stand - includng there was no accidental drowning he was aware of. Plus to put her to death based on the evidence was not warrented - they should have included lesser charges, too? Oh, and the the whole family was covering up an accident. Not to forget that no one really knows who was her caretaker and when she died in whose care?


OK

Maybe no one agrees however, it could have happened-reasonable doubt.
Cindy is a shrew and I have zero problem believing that George would keep things from her if only as a means of his self protection.

Well now that Baez does not have a deal with a book making, movie, or anything else, I wonder what he is thinking now? Where did this all go wrong? This was my meal ticket. Nobody will want him from all of this, the sponsors will loose alot if they promote them. IMHO. I guess we wait and see what happens with Mr. Baez now.

Someone else will come along.

All I'm saying is, using their own words, they didn't do it within the law. That has always been my frustration.

It was a verdict reached dishonestly. I know we have no recourse, but I don't see the point in trying to justify their actions.

We must have read and /or heard different words because from what I heard, they followed exactly the guidelines presented to them by Judge Perry.

According to juror 2 there were 6 for murder 1. I guess they lied when they told everyone they could hold there ground on there verdict. He also said they did not know who Caylees care giver was This is listed on the special form. so if your not sure who it was how can you mark and say for sure Casey wasn't the care giver. she had sole custody and could of walked out with Caylee any time and there was nothing George or Cindy could do.

According to Juror 3, they were 6/6 on the manslaughter charge and 10/2 on murder 1 after the first votes.

So wait! CM is saying that someone other than George or Casey dumped Caylee's body in the woods?

Wow! That is some story Casey must have weaved for the defense.

They inferred it could have been Kronk-muddying the waters.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I have a question for the jury.

If Caylee drowned in the pool, and George "took care" of the body, why wasn't he aware enough to put shorts on that fit but was aware enough to put a pull up on a dead baby?

Maybe he was that bad of a grandpa to not know she was potty trained?


Or maybe she slept in a pullup--so if they are going to say it was the morning, the afternoon, no the early morning hours..they have to make it look like she had gotten up in the morning and headed straight to the pool.

Simply a guess.

To me--maybe Casey was more adept at this than we think and planned the story prior to Caylee's death and arranged the whole accident scenario--including popping that pool ladder back up.

 

[JaneBanks]

Maybe he was that bad of a grandpa to not know she was potty trained?


Or maybe she slept in a pullup--so if they are going to say it was the morning, the afternoon, no the early morning hours..they have to make it look like she had gotten up in the morning and headed straight to the pool.

Simply a guess.

To me--maybe Casey was more adept at this than we think and planned the story prior to Caylee's death and arranged the whole accident scenario--including popping that pool ladder back up.

Maybe.. but I was thinking (I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS STORY) they were more in a panic mode and just threw clothes on her. To stop and put a pull up on a dead baby takes thought so to me, it doesn't add up.

In response to your last statement, I wouldn't put it past her!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Caylee's Law should take into account not reporting for psychological reasons. It is a knee jerk reaction to pass such. So says CM.

Having a psychological condition does not make someone not guilty of a law.

We don't have laws that say--"but if you suffer PTSD or an eating disorder, you have 25% more extra time..."

That would be up a jury of one's peers to determine if perhaps you get to go free due to your mania.

But it isn't a defense unless one is so crazy they get to use the insanity defense.

 

[kellyg403]

Maybe he was that bad of a grandpa to not know she was potty trained?


Or maybe she slept in a pullup--so if they are going to say it was the morning, the afternoon, no the early morning hours..they have to make it look like she had gotten up in the morning and headed straight to the pool.

Simply a guess.

To me--maybe Casey was more adept at this than we think and planned the story prior to Caylee's death and arranged the whole accident scenario--including popping that pool ladder back up.

Wasn't it the ex sil of Cindy's who said later, that after the 'alleged' fight between Cindy and Casey over the check theft from the grandfather, that she woke up at 6am and found them and the car missing? If she was wearing a pull up to bed, its possible that she was still in the pull up from that night.

Its pure speculation though, that statement came out after the trail.

Kelly

 

[chobie]

The bolded part is the crux of the pro/ con argument. The jury did not find and abiding conviction of guilt so they could not find Casey guilty.

Exactly.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It's the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was pretty important to our founding fathers.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Wasn't it the ex sil of Cindy's who said later, that after the 'alleged' fight between Cindy and Casey over the check theft from the grandfather, that she woke up at 6am and found them and the car missing? If she was wearing a pull up to bed, its possible that she was still in the pull up from that night.

Its pure speculation though, that statement came out after the trail.

Kelly

Since Cindy has spent her life covering for Casey's lies from the first moment she breathed them and did so until June 2008 and opted to cover the tracks instead of just be freakin' honest...

we will never know.

Cindy and Casey's side will only address the fairy tale mentioned in court and we will now have a more detailed book than what Mackenzie Phillips had to offer. I bet Casey is reading that right now for inspiration for her tell all.

 

[joviroxx]

Since Cindy has spent her life covering for Casey's lies from the first moment she breathed them and did so until June 2008 and opted to cover the tracks instead of just be freakin' honest...

l.

The irony that these lies to cover for Casey told by Cindy and managed by Cindy and George's inability to stand up to it and play along are what Casey used to throw them under the bus and save herself, is truly well, ironic.

 

[FredinFL]

She put a pullup on the kid so she wouldn't mess up the trunk she stuck her in after she chloroformed her and duct taped her mouth so she wouldn't make any noise if she woke up while still in the trunk while mama partied on.

I'll tell you, actually, I wonder if she did that once and it worked so she did a couple more times until she accidentally overdosed the kid on the chloroform. Maybe one time she got back to the car and the child was awake, so she used more.

That's my theory. George had nothing to do with it.

 

[kellyg403]

Since Cindy has spent her life covering for Casey's lies from the first moment she breathed them and did so until June 2008 and opted to cover the tracks instead of just be freakin' honest...

we will never know.

Cindy and Casey's side will only address the fairy tale mentioned in court and we will now have a more detailed book than what Mackenzie Phillips had to offer. I bet Casey is reading that right now for inspiration for her tell all.

I would tend to agree with you. I felt some pity for Cindy during parts of her testimony, but honestly, I don't think the apple fell far from the tree.

As with every single one of Casey's lie, there was an element of truth. I would imagine that will continue.

Kelly

 

[kellyg403]

The irony that these lies to cover for Casey told by Cindy and managed by Cindy and George's inability to stand up to it and play along are what Casey used to throw them under the bus and save herself, is truly well, ironic.

Yes, and even more ironic that Cindy herself may be the only one who actually goes to jail for those same lies.

Kelly

 

[PixieDust32]

I read that Casey refused to see her Mother in Jail. Not surprise, this is the Casey we know, the selfish, evil, sociopath. She was so jealous of her mom love to Caylee that she killed her.

 

[lajones81]

MattMorganESQ Matt Morgan
#CaseyAnthony depo will air live on forthepeople.com. July 19, 2011. Mark your calendars.

via twitter

 

[CurlyGirl]

Maybe he was that bad of a grandpa to not know she was potty trained?


Or maybe she slept in a pullup--so if they are going to say it was the morning, the afternoon, no the early morning hours..they have to make it look like she had gotten up in the morning and headed straight to the pool.

Simply a guess.

GA saw Casey & Caylee at 12:30 pm as they were heading out the door. Nobody saw Caylee after that. So, waking up, heading for the pool, and drowning in the morning with a pull up still on is an unlikely story.

We know that Casey went out with Tony that night because Blockbuster has her on surveillence video at 8 pm w/Tony and no Caylee.

Where was Caylee? Obviously not drowned in the pool in the morning since GA saw her in the afternoon that day. Not at Tony's house because Tony said he hadn't seen Caylee since June 1-2. Could it be that Casey put her in a pullup and the other clothes as pj's and when she drifted into unconsciousness, that's when she went in the trunk? Makes sense that she'd have a pull up on in case she wet herself that night.

Casey stayed overnight at Tony's house that night. Tony testified that he skipped class and they stayed in bed that day. That would mean Caylee was in the trunk all night and morning. This leads me to believe that Caylee was already dead at that point because how could you leave a live person in the trunk well into the morning? In the FL heat much less? You don't.

Could it be that Casey chloroformed the child, and when she died she eliminated and Casey had to change her out of her old clothes and into new ones? Where were the original clothes that Caylee left the house in? If it were an accident, why would you ditch the clothes that GA saw her in for this new outfit? Could Casey have thought that maybe there was more to be eliminated and put the pullup on to contain that as well as any other fluids that would leak out?