I Know Longer Believe

[CurlyGirl]

And you have proof that without a shadow of a doubt, she was the one who killed the child?

Yeah, except it wasn't a shadow of a doubt decision ... it was reasonable doubt decision.

Do I reasonably doubt she killed her child? Not at all.

 

[NikitaZee]

It can "sound" easy to you, but 11 hours is 11 hours. Votes are taken when you are in the jury room. I can guarantee you they didn't just sit around for 11 hours staring at each other and then all vote "not guilty." There's no requirement that a jury has to look at any evidence again. At what length of time does a decision become acceptable? If they had taken 22 hours to deliberate and come up with the same decision? 11 days? 22 days and still the same? People would still be gnashing their teeth and wailing about the jury being wrong. They would just come up with some other ephemeral reason.

Heck, they'd be crying foul if she was found guilty but not given the death penalty.

I don't think the 11 hours would be thrown around so much if the verdict was guilty.

 

[mickeyboat]

I'd laugh too if you made any sense.


They didn't take one piece of addition evidence back to the room and went over 6 weeks of testimony in under 10 hours. Sounds easy to me

It wasn't easy for them because they know they are going to get a whole lot of backlash for their decision. It would have been a whole lot easier to convict her - they would have been heroes to the public.

But they took their job seriously and made sure the prosecutor did his job proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was their opinion that he didn't. So Casey was acquitted.

As far as not taking evidence into the room ... they had been listening and viewing evidence for 6 weeks. They had been looking for evidence to prove what the prosecutor charged. They did not find it. How could looking at more evidence change their minds? If someone missed something big, don't you think that one of the twelve would have said "hey, but what about this?" If everyone agrees, what point would there be to looking at the evidence again?

 

[ols386]

I started to multiquote, but it got too long.

The defence did not present any evidence of drowning. They did not have the burden to explain what happened to Caylee. They did plant a seed of reasonable doubt by indicating a possible alternative theory, but they were under no obligation to prove it.

Attorney comments are not evidence that the jurors are allowed to consider.

I would hope the jury remembered that when they were deliberating.

I think the assumption that the decision was "easy" is hysterical from somebody who wasn't sitting in the jury room during deliberations. I find it comical to a high degree.

Ah, I see, then I'm happy for ya.

 

[phinz]

Yeah, except it wasn't a shadow of a doubt decision ... it was reasonable doubt decision.

Do I reasonably doubt she killed her child? Not at all.

Actual nstructions for Florida juries:

" … a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative imaginary or forced doubt … 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 which waivers 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 to that proof.”

There was no evidence that she killed her, so they were duty bound to find her not guilty.

 

[ols386]

It wasn't easy for them because they know they are going to get a whole lot of backlash for their decision. It would have been a whole lot easier to convict her - they would have been heroes to the public.

But they took their job seriously and made sure the prosecutor did his job proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was their opinion that he didn't. So Casey was acquitted.

As far as not taking evidence into the room ... they had been listening and viewing evidence for 6 weeks. They had been looking for evidence to prove what the prosecutor charged. They did not find it. How could looking at more evidence change their minds? If someone missed something big, don't you think that one of the twelve would have said "hey, but what about this?" If everyone agrees, what point would there be to looking at the evidence again?

I doubt that any of us can get inside the heads of the jurors. We don't know them. But I seriously do hope that was their mind-set.

 

[mickeyboat]

Yeah, except it wasn't a shadow of a doubt decision ... it was reasonable doubt decision.

Do I reasonably doubt she killed her child? Not at all.

Me niether. But that is because based on the information I have, I think she killed her.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE JURY WAS CHARGED TO DECIDE!!!

THey were charged with making sure the prosecutor proved during the trial the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a difference.

 

[phinz]

If everyone agrees, what point would there be to looking at the evidence again?

Exactly. If someone shows me an apple, shows me a picture of an apple, shows me a picture of an orange and tells me it's not an apple, and does this for 6 weeks, I'm pretty sure I won't need to hold the apple in my hands again to determine that it is, indeed, an apple.

 

[ols386]

Exactly. If someone shows me an apple, shows me a picture of an apple, shows me a picture of an orange and tells me it's not an apple, and does this for 6 weeks, I'm pretty sure I won't need to hold the apple in my hands again to determine that it is, indeed, an apple.

Casey was the last one to see Caylee alive. She did not report her missing for 31 days. She sends the cops on a wild goose chase saying that Zanny the Nanny took her, and then taking them to the apartment where Zanny supposedly lived, only to find that no one lived there, then the whole Universal thing. Then Caylee's body ends up in the swampy woods, down the street from Casey's home.

 

[phinz]

Casey was the last one to see Caylee.

Prove it.

And your whole scenario says nothing and proves nothing. There's no evidence there to provide absolute proof that she's guilty.

 

[kidshop]

Casey was the last one to see Caylee alive. She did not report her missing for 31 days. She sends the cops on a wild goose chase saying that Zanny the Nanny took her, and then taking them to the apartment where Zanny supposedly lived, only to find that no one lived there, then the whole Universal thing. Then Caylee's body ends up in the swampy woods, down the street from Casey's home.

More than that, she pretended Caylee was alive and fine, while being the only person to know she was dead, until forced to come up with the other stories.

 

[ols386]

Prove it.

According to Casey, she was.

 

[ols386]

More than that, she pretended Caylee was alive and fine, while being the only person to know she was dead, until forced to come up with the other stories.

Yes! That's exactly what she did.

 

[phinz]

According to Casey, she was.

She said this in testimony, on the stand?

If she's such a liar about everything else, what's the truth? How is this the truth but other statements aren't? You use the evidence, and the evidence was lacking. You don't convict with the heart. You convict by the evidence. The jurors may very well think she is guilty, but that's not enough to go on. It has to be proven. That's the beauty of our criminal justice system. You have to use logic, not emotion.

 

[CurlyGirl]

Casey was the last one to see Caylee alive. She did not report her missing for 31 days. She sends the cops on a wild goose chase saying that Zanny the Nanny took her, and then taking them to the apartment where Zanny supposedly lived, only to find that no one lived there, then the whole Universal thing. Then Caylee's body ends up in the swampy woods, down the street from Casey's home.

While I am convinced that she did it ... and even though it kills me to type it ... there still is no evidence that Caylee's death was at Casey's hands. It could've been at Tony's hands.

However, the fact that Casey procured the "coffin" (laundry bag) from her family home to put Caylee's body in, the fact that she carried that decomposing body in her trunk (the strand of hair with decomp banding evidence) for long enough that it caused the car to smell (which GA readily admitted on the stand that Casey's car smelled like decomp), the fact that she did nothing about contacting authorities for 31 days EXCEPT for making excuses as to where she and Caylee were (Bush Gardens, in Tampa, Caylee with Nanny, etc.) ... that all tells me she had a hand in her daughter's death.

If she were innocent, why not simply say "I went out front for a few minutes and the gate was open. I thought Casey was behind me but when I discovered she wasn't, I ran into the house to look for her and then ran to the pool and there she was, drowned in the pool. I panicked, didn't know what to do. I put the body in my trunk and then it smelled so I needed to get rid of it and I decided to cover it up. Let me take you to where I dumped her."

To me, if she gave that as her original story and went on trial, I am pretty sure that, based on evidence presented, I personally couldn't give her a guilty sentence and would highly doubt that it wasn't an accidental drowning.

However, when you tack on the alleged kidnapping story/lie, it is just shows me that she is guilty and was trying to buy time to formulate a new tactic. Add the fact that Casey sent police on a wild goose chase for a person who had nothing to do with Caylee's "disappearance", then the "accidental drowning gone out of control" kind of looks like "I killed my kid and am trying to hide it".

People lie for a reason ... and that reason is to get out of the trouble that they're in.

 

[U2_rocks!]

I haven't followed this case all along - I have only recently been interested.

So let me see if I can summarize the evidence that was actually proven by the prosecutor:

- Caylee is dead - but we don't know manner or cause of death
- Caylee was not reported missing for many days - this could be neglect (child disappears by means unknown and mother doesn't care) or it could be because Casey knows what's happened to her. It does not mean that Casey caused what happened to her.
- her body was disposed of by a human being - we don't know which human being
- Caylee had been in or close to Casey's car trunk at some point - we don't know when or how close
- something dead may have been in that same trunk at some point - was it ever proven to be human remains?
- if proven to be human remains, who had access to Casey's car - only Casey, or others (her parents)?
- chloroform was found near the body - Casey admitted using it on Caylee to help her sleep - no evidence that it was a factor in her death; did others (e.g. Casey's parents) also have access to this substance?
- Casey and others lied about several things

Am I missing any critical evidence that the jury was given?

I can see lots and lots of holes here. Yes, lies were told, things were covered up. I still can't see any strong links between Casey and what happened to Caylee though. Sure Casey looks like she could have been the reason why Caylee is dead, but no-one can say how! Was it an accident that she covered up? Was it deliberate? Was there neglect? One might infer that if Caylee disappeared and it wasn't reported, that either it was extreme neglect to not try to find her, or Casey already knew where she was. BUT ...... if Casey knew she was dead and where the body was, that still doesn't mean that SHE was the one who caused the death - all it means is that she withheld that information from authorities. Caylee's death could have been truly accidental, and fear could have made Casey try to cover it up. Even manslaughter could be too harsh a charge if that in fact did happen.

I'm not saying I believe she is innocent - just that there are enough questions to provide plenty of reasonable doubt about Casey's responsibility in the DEATH of Caylee (as opposed to the subsequent cover up). If the jury saw those holes from the beginning, they didn't need long to come back with a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[NikitaZee]

I haven't followed this case all along - I have only recently been interested.

So let me see if I can summarize the evidence that was actually proven by the prosecutor:

- Caylee is dead - but we don't know manner or cause of death
- Caylee was not reported missing for many days - this could be neglect (child disappears by means unknown and mother doesn't care) or it could be because Casey knows what's happened to her. It does not mean that Casey caused what happened to her.
- her body was disposed of by a human being - we don't know which human being
- Caylee had been in or close to Casey's car trunk at some point - we don't know when or how close
- something dead may have been in that same trunk at some point - was it ever proven to be human remains?
- if proven to be human remains, who had access to Casey's car - only Casey, or others (her parents)?
- chloroform was found near the body - Casey admitted using it on Caylee to help her sleep - no evidence that it was a factor in her death; did others (e.g. Casey's parents) also have access to this substance?
- Casey and others lied about several things

Am I missing any critical evidence that the jury was given?

I can see lots and lots of holes here. Yes, lies were told, things were covered up. I still can't see any strong links between Casey and what happened to Caylee though. Sure Casey looks like she could have been the reason why Caylee is dead, but no-one can say how! Was it an accident that she covered up? Was it deliberate? Was there neglect? One might infer that if Caylee disappeared and it wasn't reported, that either it was extreme neglect to not try to find her, or Casey already knew where she was. BUT ...... if Casey knew she was dead and where the body was, that still doesn't mean that SHE was the one who caused the death - all it means is that she withheld that information from authorities. Caylee's death could have been truly accidental, and fear could have made Casey try to cover it up. Even manslaughter could be too harsh a charge if that in fact did happen.

I'm not saying I believe she is innocent - just that there are enough questions to provide plenty of reasonable doubt about Casey's responsibility in the DEATH of Caylee (as opposed to the subsequent cover up). If the jury saw those holes from the beginning, they didn't need long to come back with a "not guilty" verdict.

Excellent post, sums up exactly how I feel about this case.

 

[kinntj]

I'm trying to distance myself from the media now that the trial is over, but I did watch Ashton today on InSession. It was nice not to watch this all day and to just turn it on at 2pm to watch his thoughts on what happened.

I loved how he said to the public that when you believe in the system, you can't just stop believing when things don't go your way. I'm sure over the years, many cases he worked on went his way and those criminals are serving time for the crimes they committed. This is from a person who breathed this case every moment for 3 years.

Right now I'm following a case out of Ludington, MI about a missing 4 month old. Her dad abducted her and the police found him hours at his mothers home and no baby. Just heartbreaking and I hope she is alive. Clothes were found, but police didn't release where or when.

 

[CurlyGirl]

Casey was the last one to see Caylee alive.

Prove it.

According to Casey, she was.

She said this in testimony, on the stand?

Prove that Casey was the last one to see Caylee alive? Here you go! It's from the Casey Anthony timeline from these two sources: http://investigation.discovery.com/...rage/timeline/june9-june14/june9-june14.html and http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

June 15, 2008 – Cindy Anthony said she last saw Caylee on Father's Day, when she took her to visit Cindy's father at an assisted living facility in Mount Dora. A video is later produced in an attempt to verify the sighting.

June 16 – At or about 12:30 p.m., George Anthony allegedly sees Casey and Caylee leave with backpacks on their shoulders.

At 2:30 p.m., George Anthony leaves for work.

June 17 – Someone fills out a card at the Sawgrass Apartments. The signature on the card reads Zenaida Hernandez-Gonzalez.

The Anthony's allegedly notice that the gate to the swimming pool is open and the ladder is next to the pool.

Casey allegedly posts a message for a friend named "Amy" on a social networking Web site. The message reads:

"Cheer up me lady! I love you and can't wait to finally get you moved in."

June 18 – Casey allegedly borrows a shovel from a neighbor. Later that same day she is seen backing her car up to her parents garage.

June 20 to June 21 – Casey allegedly hangs out at a club in Orlando.

July 16, – Caylee reported missing
Cindy Anthony called 911 to report Casey for stealing her car, saying it smelled like a dead body. Cindy called back minutes later to report Caylee missing for the first time after Casey admitted she had not seen her for weeks.

July 16 – Investigators discover Casey has been lying about her place of employment and other details regarding her daughter's disappearance. As a result, Casey is arrested and charged with child neglect, making false official statements, and obstructing an investigation.

and from Cindy Anthony's testimony courtesy of http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com ..................

Mrs. Anthony believed Casey went to work as usual at Universal on June 15, 2008, the day after Caylee's last sighting by the family.

Casey told her Caylee would be staying with Zanny on Monday, July 16, and Casey would stay at Zanny's when she returned from Universal Studios. Casey and Caylee was scheduled to return back home on Tuesday, July 17, but Casey said some work schedule prevented her from returning and they were to stay at Zanny's again.

They would not return on Wednesday, Casey saying Caylee would be going to Tampa's Busch Gardens with Zanny, and told Mrs. Anthony they would be back home Saturday, June 21. Mrs. Anthony said there was always some reason why she could not talk to Caylee during the week.

Then the plan changed to a return for Monday, June 23. Casey, on Monday night then told her Zanny had a car accident and Zanny was in a Tampa emergency room.

On Tuesday, June 24, an Anthony backyard shed was broken in to. It later turned out Casey and Tony Lazarro had been together all week in Orlando, and had broken a lock to get to gas cans in the shed. The Tampa trip was a lie.

Although Mrs. Anthony had daily contact with Casey, it turned out the lies were continuous, while Casey lied about where and who she was with during the following weeks.

A July 3rd Universal Studio trip and Jacksonville visit related by Casey to Mrs. Anthony also turned out to be fabrications, as well as the Zanny accident in Tampa. Now Mrs. Anthony was becoming suspicious and asked son Lee to see if he could find out where she was.


Not one person has come forward to say that they saw Caylee after George said that date was the last he saw of her. No video of Caylee in a store with Casey, no video of Caylee with Casey at the video store, she wasn't with Tony, wasn't with the alleged nanny, nobody ... not one person ... saw Caylee after that date. However, Casey was quick to give excuses saying that Zanny the Nanny had Caylee, that she was in Tampa with Caylee, that she was at Bush Gardens with "Juliette Lewis and her daughter" and Caylee ... yet Juliette Lewis was a fictional character and there wasn't any evidence of Caylee with Casey at Bush Gardens.

 

[dngnb8]

Yeah, except it wasn't a shadow of a doubt decision ... it was reasonable doubt decision.

Do I reasonably doubt she killed her child? Not at all.

Apparently, your definition of reasonable and the jurors are different. Since ALL 12 came to the same conclusion, I would premise youre decision making process is biased. Based on how some people here are coming to guild conclusions, your "judgments" most likely would have been over turned in the appeal.

Ive seen the guilty verdict applied more because you dislike her as a mom, then whether she committed a crime.

Compromising the legal system based on emotional response only creates a legal system based on tears and not facts.