Casey Anthony TRIAL thread #2

[LisaR]

I really don't see any concrete evidence that SHE killed her -- yes I will agree to a dead body in the trunk poss from dna being caylee, casey, cindy or shirley ok ...but its early in the case I know - but still the state has not proved that she killed her (yet) nor has anything been really proven other than she is a liar.. doesn't mean she is a murderer... again YET....
STates job is to prove without reasonable doubt she killed her child...to date I don't see that has been proven... and it will only take 1 juror to see it that way for her to not be found guilty..

I 100% believe that Casey killed Caylee.

However, the reality of it is, the state has a very weak case. They can prove that Casey is a liar. They can prove she wasn't a good parent because parents don't wait 31 days before reporting that their child is missing. They can prove she is a thief. But they have not proved that Casey killed Caylee.

They have very little evidence. There isn't any proof that Caylee was drugged. They don't have DNA that proves that Casey did anything wrong. They don't have any witnesses that put Casey at the crime scene. They can't even find someone to testify that Casey disliked Caylee or wasn't a good parent. Even the friends that want to throw Casey under the bus admit that she was a good parent and seemed to love her daughter.

I do think this case would have been much stronger if some of the parties involved would have acted sooner. If Cindy, George or Lee would have reported Caylee missing earlier, there is a chance her body would have been found sooner which means there would have been much more evidence.

Again, I think Casey did it but the state hasn't proven anything, IMO.

 

[plutotek]

I really don't see any concrete evidence that SHE killed her -- yes I will agree to a dead body in the trunk poss from dna being caylee, casey, cindy or shirley ok ...but its early in the case I know - but still the state has not proved that she killed her (yet) nor has anything been really proven other than she is a liar.. doesn't mean she is a murderer... again YET....
STates job is to prove without reasonable doubt she killed her child...to date I don't see that has been proven... and it will only take 1 juror to see it that way for her to not be found guilty..

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is a difference between proving she killed her and the body of evidence indicating that she is the only one that could. There is no smoking gun, so no, there is no DIRECT evidence that will say she did it. However, the question will be whether, when all the circumstantial evidence is weighed, there is anyone else that could have done it. I think the prosecution has about 2 weeks left (their projections) and then we'll hear the other side, but the prosecution has made a strong presentation given the facts.

Who's Shirley?

 

[Samba]

Read the Anthony pool not chlorinated.

I think that with the dead body evidence, the chloroform level evidence, the chloroform search on the computer, the coverup lies revealed....the prosecution case is moving right along.

 

[a1tinkfans]

I 100% believe that Casey killed Caylee.

However, the reality of it is, the state has a very weak case. They can prove that Casey is a liar. They can prove she wasn't a good parent because parents don't wait 31 days before reporting that their child is missing. They can prove she is a thief. But they have not proved that Casey killed Caylee.

They have very little evidence. There isn't any proof that Caylee was drugged. They don't have DNA that proves that Casey did anything wrong. They don't have any witnesses that put Casey at the crime scene. They can't even find someone to testify that Casey disliked Caylee or wasn't a good parent. Even the friends that want to throw Casey under the bus admit that she was a good parent and seemed to love her daughter.

I do think this case would have been much stronger if some of the parties involved would have acted sooner. If Cindy, George or Lee would have reported Caylee missing earlier, there is a chance her body would have been found sooner which means there would have been much more evidence.

Again, I think Casey did it but the state hasn't proved anything, IMO.

Very Sadly, I happen to agree, THUS FAR...I pray that they can get all this "stuff" together to make a compelling case of circumst. evidence....It will not be easy, But based on what has been presented thus far they have her on child neglect...which is why the state included that and other "lesser" charges.....I fell like "we" the collective Non jurors Know much more and are already convinced one way or the other. The jury only gets what is presented, so I guess only time will tell if there is real Justice for Caylee!I hope so!!

 

[kinntj]

I 100% believe that Casey killed Caylee.

However, the reality of it is, the state has a very weak case. They can prove that Casey is a liar. They can prove she wasn't a good parent because parents don't wait 31 days before reporting that their child is missing. They can prove she is a thief. But they have not proved that Casey killed Caylee.

They have very little evidence. There isn't any proof that Caylee was drugged. They don't have DNA that proves that Casey did anything wrong. They don't have any witnesses that put Casey at the crime scene. They can't even find someone to testify that Casey disliked Caylee or wasn't a good parent. Even the friends that want to throw Casey under the bus admit that she was a good parent and seemed to love her daughter.

I do think this case would have been much stronger if some of the parties involved would have acted sooner. If Cindy, George or Lee would have reported Caylee missing earlier, there is a chance her body would have been found sooner which means there would have been much more evidence.

Again, I think Casey did it but the state hasn't proved anything, IMO.

----

 

[themilesfamily]

I think what's going to convict Casey is how hard she tried to cover up her own involvement. She lied to everyone about everything to throw them off the track. And I don't think the jury is going to buy that the reason she did this is because she was sexually abused. That sexual abuse/drowning/George Anthony story magically turned up in time for the trial. And as far as I know, there is no evidence that any of that actually occurred.

It reminds me somewhat of the Scott Peterson case. If I remember right that was also a case based on circumstantial evidence -- it was his own behavior, actions, lies that pointed the finger consistently back at him.

Throughout the Peterson trial the defense attornies were saying they didn't have enough hard evidence to convict him -- but he was convicted. And I think Casey Anthony will be, too. (Convicted on 1st degree murder.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You go Dr Vaas!

(Regarding trunks) ... don't find children's bodies ...

Baez objects and it's overruled!

Please elaborate---I feel like it is an inside joke.

Reference?


Thanks!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is just the best day yet! Vass has had it with JB.

Potatoes in the cupboard... At that moment I actually thought of going and hiding a potato. At my age I would quickly forget about it.Then one day in the future I would get to smell......

What was the assignment? Set some potatoes in the cupboard?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Baez survived Dr. vass with a subpoena in order to get his data base, state made it known to Perry and they recalled the subpoena

What was Baez's grounds for getting it?

We disagree with you, so we are going to check your work.

 

[Samba]

Was JB effective in his attempt to show the science as junk science, untested science from Dr Vass?

 

[sorcerormickey]

Was JB effective in his attempt to show the science as junk science, untested science from Dr Vass?

IMHO, not at all. He just made himself look more like the bumbling fool he is.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Why did they recall the subpoena? what is there to hid in the data base?
that just seems fishy to me,

I didn't watch--but you can't just go willy nilly subpoenaing people or documents --- especially documents. They have to have a compelling reason.

If i had to guess--Baez had no reason to get it. Just because his client is accused of murder is no reason for him to have privilege to access someone else's database. The expert is not on trial. He is a witness and unless he had direct interaction with Casey (like Tony or Amy and the texts and facebook/myspace accounts), there is no credible reason that Baez needs to see a database that he is unlikely to understand anyway.

If they want to hint at corruption, I guess they can deal with that on appeal.

Would you like to turn over your database? I'm sure *you* have nothing to hide.

 

[kinntj]

Please elaborate---I feel like it is an inside joke.

Reference?


Thanks!

I'm guessing that's when Baez was questioning Dr. Vass on Fluorine not found in dead children (regarding the build up over time). Baez wanted to know how he can report this when it hasn't been studied. Dr. Vass said he was fortunate that he doesn't come by many dead children.

I don't know if it this they are talking about, but it's around this conversation in the court room. Others might be able to give specifics.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

well my natural thought is if you have nothing to hid you wouldn't care who prodded into what -- if there is a reason you wouldn't want someone to see something or possibly figure it out then you fight to hide it..
I wasn't watching and didn't know the proscution citied a case law to stop it.. science has a ton of mistakes all the time and I am sure they don't want to the let the defense locate any loop holes that could get her off... but at this rate there is soooo much reasonable doubt going on it a cluster **** anyway.

"If you have nothing to hide" is not the basis of law.

Baez has always been welcome to use his defense budget to hire his own experts. Unfortunately, any that he has, he cannot present until it is Defense's turn.

In the meantime, he has to use what he has learned (which coincidentally seems to be nothing) to discredit the expert on his own. If the expert has never gone on record as lying or having been wrong via any reports or publications or background checks or other expert claims--What pray tell is Baez going to find on a computer that helps him? That the good doctor was playing solitaire the day he smelled the car?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Baez earlier tried to use notes with Vass, the judge asked him if he was trying to get the witness impeached. Baez is trying anything because he is drowning.

Pun intended?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I really don't see any concrete evidence that SHE killed her -- yes I will agree to a dead body in the trunk poss from dna being caylee, casey, cindy or shirley ok ...but its early in the case I know - but still the state has not proved that she killed her (yet) nor has anything been really proven other than she is a liar.. doesn't mean she is a murderer... again YET....
STates job is to prove without reasonable doubt she killed her child...to date I don't see that has been proven... and it will only take 1 juror to see it that way for her to not be found guilty..

Actually--we will never have concrete physical evidence that Casey killed Caylee.

It won't be required. They just have to show that through all of the circumstantial evidence put together--that Casey was the the only one who *could* have done it. Beyond a reasonable doubt, of course.

There was no "physical proof" that Scott Peterson offed his wife. It was all of the circumstantial evidence together that showed that he was the only one who *could* have done it.

The burden is high, of course-but very much doable. And with the defense strategy presented--almost guaranteed unless they put their lying client on the stand to tell some convincing stories.

Unfortunately, once they go accusing someone else--they don't realize that their story can't have any holes or doubt to it, or it will be evident that it is perjury and there goes their strategy.

 

[ilovepete]

I think they recalled the subpoena because the defense didn't jump through all the hoops (law) to serve an out of state witness who is just there with them because of a court subpoena. At least that is what I gathered.

 

[kinntj]

I think they recalled the subpoena because the defense didn't jump through all the hoops (law) to serve an out of state witness who is just there with them because of a court subpoena. At least that is what I gathered.

That could be.

 

[Kurby]

not many murders are caught on video tape or witnessed by someone so in almost all cases it's circumstantial evidence that convicts someone.

if you have to wait for proof positive then no one would ever be convicted of their crimes

 

[usnuzuloose]

Pun intended?

To be honest I didn't think about that when I wrote that word.