I predicted the verdict a month ago
When you have a circumstantial case (difficult to begin with) and then try to add all of this silly science, you weaken your case. This is EXACTLY what happened in the OJ trial. When the prosecution brings in every single shred of evidence and it isn't all perfect and you take 2 months to present it, this is the result. One single hair after searching over and over again? Evidence sent to a research facility instead of a real forensic science lab, the head of which has been working with the smell of death for twenty years and he "jumps back two feet" from the smell from a little can? What a liar! We see a prosecution run animations showing how tape was applied based on position of the head, then we saw the guy who found the head say he moved it by sticking a pole in the eye socket and moving it around! We saw a real forensic scientist say that the head was absolutely not in that position as it decomposed... A medical examiner who concludes that it is murder based on it wasn't reported to police, and that it was placed in the woods??? How in any way shape or form does that make the manner of death a homicide rather than someone trying to cover up an accident??? PREPOSTEROUS! The grandfather saying it was an accident that spiraled out of control... Then the other day watching this defense attorney.... he may not have had big trial experience, but he was just amazing! He tied assertion to undeniable fact, a hugely powerful technique.... I saw him talk about and point out the demeanor of a scientist who was obviously evasive in his answers and tie that to "Junk Science" and "Fantasy Forensics". I predicted this... Just ask Joan! |
|
|
| hey i live here and i can't see how is is gonna walk down the street in orlando .ron i have been watching this for over 3 years there are lot of things that did not come out! i am shocked she got away with murder |
| Yeah, she may -or may not- have gotten away with murder, but GOD BLESS AMERICA and our legal system!!!!!! The government must meet SUCH a high burden of proof to take away someone's liberty! I love what our country stands for. It has been SOOOOOOO long since I heard the phrase that I grew up with ringing in my ears: "Better 1,000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be found guilty." and I heard that from a commentator just now. Contrast that with a guy I know who to my chagrin is proudly wearing a Che beanie,,, an image of a disgusting thug responsible for over 14,000+ summary executions of civilians... |
| After working in the legal system over 31 years, I can't quite join you in your thoughts of what a great system we have...Our system is geared to protect the accused but gives no protection to the victims...That poor baby girl...who was protecting her? May God Bless her little soul.... |
| Look, the system isn't perfect; no system can be. The victim in this cannot be helped in any way at this point. The point is about the protections from the government that we all enjoy. Please tell me about another system that protects the people from the government as well as our system. |
| It feels to me just like an O.J. trial again also. I'm sure she'll come out with a book of a similar title also.... |
| Just because they found her "Not Guilty", does not mean they believe she's innocent. They did not have evidence that eliminated reasonable doubt. They could not convict her of the charges the prosecution brought forth. I think the jury did their honest best job they could given what they had. The prosecution absolutely botched the entire case. |
rdf wrote: Just because they found her "Not Guilty", does not mean they believe she's innocent. They did not have evidence that eliminated reasonable doubt. They could not convict her of the charges the prosecution brought forth. I think the jury did their honest best job they could given what they had. The prosecution absolutely botched the entire case. My impression as well.  And yes, I firmly believe in "innocent until proven guilty" - she likely is guilty, but the "proven" part was not brought forth.  |
| BTW I think that OJ killed his wife, but I agreed with the decision of the jury. In that case, the detective who went over the wall and found the most critical evidence said that when he went over the wall, said that OJ was no more a suspect in his mind than the prosecutor was. This was at the home location of a major celebrity where he had been to before on domestic violence calls, whose wife had just been VERY brutally murdered and police ALWAYS suspect the spouse/ex spouse first - he was completely lying. Then the lead detective took vials of sample blood drawn from OJ, and took it to the scene of the crime? Are you kidding me? And it was the same example of trying to shove every shred of NEARLY irrelevant evidence and keeping a jury hostage for months. Just as an aside. |
| 84 searches for cholorform??? That report was NOT presented by the guy who created it, just a few days ago!!! The evidence wasn't testified to, that it came from her computer drive, or that it came from the router records subpoenaed... it was testified to by the guy who wrote the software! That would be like the guy who wrote Internet Explorer testifying to the accuracy of WikiPedia!!! PREPOSTEROUS! That report didn't contain any reference to a search for myspace. The actual computer logs that had ONE (1) search for chloroform also had a search for myspace that didn't show up in the magical 84 chloroform search. JUNK!!!! WHY PRESENT JUNK EVIDENCE if you have a real case? IT POLLUTES YOUR ENTIRE CASE. |
| I am just amazed!! Completely shocked ....no? I totally "get it," but I really think I'd be afraid to leave prison and walk outside now. With that said, the only thing I "don't get," is... how the heck did anyone have doubt? Based on the how it happened? Partying after it's been PROVED that she DID know that her daughter was dead [...just saying she didn't do it]. Then more concerned about what her boyfriend was up to ...and not if the body was found? The #$%@%@ deserves to die. |
| Partying is weird (and a sign of something) but it doesn't prove that she killed her child over there was an accident. In either case the behavior would be equally weird and socially unacceptable. Many people act in ways we don't understand to severe emotional trauma, not just baby killers. |
| I don't think I'd want braggin' rights to this one. Evidence, no evidence, no matter how you slice it, a child died a horrible death and her remains were thrown in a swamp. |
| The biggest question in my mind is the man that found the body... If I saw a skull... called the police and they said they did not find anything.... I would be going downtown... getting the police or the press... taking them to the body and telling them... right there.... Something just leaves a strange question about him in my mind..... I believe his total take was $288,000.00..... I don't really think he killed the child...but I think he knows more than he is telling.... I was left with several questions... how could the tape have been around her head... the body completely decompose and not one little drop of skin, or DNA be on the tape ? Not sure if she did it... but I am sure there is just way too many unanswered questions... I would have had a hard time finding her gulity of Murder. |
| ok guys i have a good source he is a det. and the real scoop is that she was out at a club or party and she did you the cloroform to keep her sleeping in the back seat and came out and she was dead put duck tape over her in panic i do not think she ment to kill her all of us here in fl think it was a mistake gone wrong .. to throw her poor dad under the bus again was wrong.. i hope we all saw how she laugh when getting finger printed and how her dad just hid his face when the verdict was read he knows the truth about his daughter.. now orlando will spend more money to protect her when she gets out cause right now she is one hated lady .. in all she just needs to tell the truth and for million dollars you will see she will in her next book deal !!!! |
| Well if that's the case, they should have made their case that it was an accident. Instead they tried to make the case that she intentionally killed her child. The failing here is probably the prosecution. If you're gonna try to imprison or even execute someone, you need evidence. Solid evidence to prove your theory beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution was unable to do that. |
Ron wrote: Well if that's the case, they should have made their case that it was an accident. Instead they tried to make the case that she intentionally killed her child. The failing here is probably the prosecution. If you're gonna try to imprison or even execute someone, you need evidence. Solid evidence to prove your theory beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecution was unable to do that. Completely agreed! |
Nothing to do with her guilt or innocence, but...the little snippet of this that got me was the mother saying she researched "chloroform" after wandering there from "chlorophyll" . She said her dogs ate bamboo and she was concerned about poisoning...so she looked up "chlorophyll" ??????  Why not look up "bamboo"???! Did she think lettuce might be poison too?  So utterly ridiculous.My take is...however the little girl died, that family raised a very spoiled and screwed up young woman . Her mother's willingness to lie for her on the stand says a lot about her upbringing.I agree with you though, Ron, that the jury did what they should. |
| I just heard a snippet from the (?) elected head of the prosecutors' office. He was thanking and congratulating everybody for a job well done (what a blow-hard!) and stated: "We put forward every bit of evidence we had." Exactly so! That was the problem, dude. |
| I agree with Ron wholeheartedly here. The prosecution did a TERRIBLE job of proving guilt BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. Did she do it? My heart is telling that if she didn't kill her, she certainly had something to do with it. But without hard, scientific evidence, a jury cannot convict. Thank God. It almost surprises me that a grand jury moved this case to trial based on the evidence they had. |
| "Even a modestly competent district attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." --attributed to Sol Wachtler, Chief Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals The requirement is sooooo low to get an indictment; it's enough to have one shred of questionable evidence to come away with an indictment. Just the fact that the baby is dead and it wasn't reported immediately is probably enough. Remember IANAL, just an observer of patterns in human behavior. |
| The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and they simply did not meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Like Ron, I also said today that "better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison." Innocent until proven guilty. This is why there are supposed to be separate standards for people in jail awaiting trial, as opposed to people in prison, serving a sentence. One is still presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, and the other has been found or plead guilty. I would rather have that presumption, than the other way around. While it means that guilty people walk away, it also reduces the possibility that someone who is truly innocent will end up in prison or on death row. Here in Illinois, after releasing a number of men who have served 10, 15, 20 plus years in prison for crimes they did not commit, (cleared by DNA), the situation is bad enough. Our justice system isn't perfect, but it's certainly better than anywhere else. Laurie and Oscar |
| I agree with all the comments regarding the prosecution but where is the justice for little Cayleigh? Watching Casey laughing after the verdict made my stomach turn. She is a psychopath who has manipulated everyone, most of all her poor parents and has gotten away with everything over and over again. People criticized her parents for enabling her and that may be true but what mother would not lie for her child who may get the death penalty? Sad, very very sad all around. |
| Sadly, our system doesn't handle victim justice. Our system is designed to punish past bad behavior and to protect society from future bad acts. Sadly, there can never be justice for someone who is dead. Executing or even daily torture of the perpetrator would not exact justice for Caylee. We could start a discussion on how to compensate victims, even collateral damage victims like the grandparents.. or all of society. How would you do that? Where would you draw the lines? How would you value things? There are civil justice remedies that can be pursued just like in the OJ case. Is money enough or even satisfactory? What is justice for a living victim? As far as her laughing goes, she just avoided the death penalty and is relieved. While this upsets you, I don't think it is unnatural or callous on her part. |
| Well, I do love the USA. I wouldn't change my citenship for anything in the world...I believe our country is the absolute best place you can live...BUT...we have our flaws...this injustice to Cayle is one of them...I want to know who in our wonderful country protects the victims???? I've read alot of responses so far here, but no one answered my question...WHO protects the victim???? Yeah, I know all about the burden of proof, etc...I live it every day of my life for the last 31 years...I hear it. I watch juries,I hear the attorneys closings, I hear the Judges charges, I know what is said in chambers behind closed doors.;....I get it...I've gotten it all these years and l don't get and I want to know.......I just want to know...WHO WHO WHO is protecting the victim???? I have no comment about her laughing...Could be nerves...could be anything...maybe she is not guilty of murder...but...what about the duck tape over her baby girl's mouth.. did the little girl put it there herself? What about supposedly finding her dead in a pool and not calling 911 but instead going out partying So, I find my two year old at the bottom of a swimming pool...I put duck tape over her mouth and face, find some of her favorite toys, hide her in some woods and go out with some friends....Maybe I am missing a piece but this doesn't sound like a person whose elevator goesto the top floor... |
| People protect themselves from becoming victims, and the police are charged with protecting the public. The legal system is after the injustice has already occurred. So it can't protect the victim. Nobody can. It's a done deal. The prosecution is said to be speaking for the victim, but it really isn't. It is speaking for society. Victim impact statements after a conviction are an attempt to fill this hole in the legal system, but there is nothing, NOTHING, that can provide justice for the victim of murder. |
| Ron, I disagree. Casey laughing is a totally inappropriate behavior. She was laughing because she knew she got away with murder, like she has gotten away with all the lying and stealing all her life. It's disgusting. |
Quote: Evidence sent to a research facility instead of a real forensic science lab, the head of which has been working with the smell of death for twenty years and he "jumps back two feet" from the smell from a little can? What a liar! I did not watch the trial and actually read very little about it. I don't know what facilities are available in that particular region but research facilities likely had better and more up to date equipment--and better trained technicians than many forensic labs. My county coroner does not do the testing at any local lab. It's sent out to larger testing labs with better and more extensive facilities. As for jumping back from a noxious cadaveric sample: I sometimes work with cadaver specimens--blood and blood products only--and have for more than 7 years. None of our samples are from a body which has been left to decompose in a swamp for months. Most are from very recently deceased individuals whose bodies were found very quickly. Still, some smaples are frankly pretty horrible and yes, the smell from some is pretty bad, even to those of us who deal with such samples routinely. Others, not so much, depending on the condition of the body when the sample was collected. And, btw, I react much less strongly than most of my co-workers including ones who have been in our lab for many more years than I have. I imagine the condition of the body was quite decomposed. Which is why a research facility rather than a forensic lab was more likely to have the equipment and trained personnel to run tests on extremely degraded samples. Forensic labs do not run at all like they do on television and most do not have occasion to test very decomposed samples. Also, because testing and equipment is very expensive, some testing is done only at a relatively few number of labs. Samples get sent out for testing in order to have the best chance at good results. Re: google searches. I am almost positive that if my husband were to die suddenly and unexpectedly, of initially unknown causes and if the police had reason to search my computer and found google searches for 'poison' or 'how to cause a heart attack', they'd look at me pretty hard. I am only amazed that she could spell chloroform and I am sure that someone else suggested that chlorophyll might be a reasonable substitute for chloroform---something any ordinary person might confuse. Huh. I would bet a lot of money she'd never heard of chlorophyll until her lawyer mentioned it. |
suzptcruise wrote: ok guys i have a good source he is a det. and the real scoop is that she was out at a club or party and she did you the cloroform to keep her sleeping in the back seat and came out and she was dead put duck tape over her in panic i do not think she ment to kill her all of us here in fl think it was a mistake gone wrong .. to throw her poor dad under the bus again was wrong.. i hope we all saw how she laugh when getting finger printed and how her dad just hid his face when the verdict was read he knows the truth about his daughter.. now orlando will spend more money to protect her when she gets out cause right now she is one hated lady .. in all she just needs to tell the truth and for million dollars you will see she will in her next book deal !!!! This sounds very plausible to me. Just sayin' |
tgir wrote: I imagine the condition of the body was quite decomposed. Which is why a research facility rather than a forensic lab was more likely to have the equipment and trained personnel to run tests on extremely degraded samples. Forensic labs do not run at all like they do on television and most do not have occasion to test very decomposed samples. Also, because testing and equipment is very expensive, some testing is done only at a relatively few number of labs. Samples get sent out for testing in order to have the best chance at good results. It was a carpet sample in a can; the first scientist who jumped back wasn't going to run the test, I guess he was just curious to sniff it. The guy who ran the test opened it in his lab and sampled the air by opening the can "just a little" and sucking some air out of it with a syringe. Then he sampled the carpet. There are NO, none, zero protocols of any sort in the lab. His machinery malfunctioned several times during the testing of samples. He forgot to open valves during one run. He says that they don't need protocols, he just knows his machine so well it's like his car, he just knew something was wrong during the run... yeah, it wasn't recording anything. He determines when filters need to be changed by looking at them and seeing if they look dirty. His machinery froze up during other runs and the test was interrupted and thawed in the middle of the test runs. He refused to run quantitative tests because he didn't "want to have a fixed number of quantity fixed in peoples minds." Whose business is it of his to decide things like that? He was evasive in all of his answers when questioned by the defense. For just a single example he was asked repeatedly if his boss was a chemist, had a degree in chemistry. He kept evading a simple question by saying how much experience his boss had. Over and over again. In his closing the defense attorney pointed this OBVIOUS FACT out, and tied it to the phrase "Fantasy Forensics". Pure brilliance. On top of it all, he and his boss had a financial interest in the device they were working on being accepted in a court of law for the first time; they were/are in the process of developing this technology to sell it to law enforcement, and it has never been allowed in a court before. That's why there was reasonable doubt with those results. The single hair out of hundreds collected from the car showed a characteristic of being from a corpse. After giving a deposition, an FBI scientist went back and discovered there was no literature on this area, so he conducted tests to see if the assertion that this can only be from a corpse was true. He documents that indeed environmental factors can produce similar if not identical results unrelated to being attached to a corpse. And it goes on and on like this. The prosecution took a circumstantial case and made it weaker by introducing questionably weak evidence that allowed the defense to successfully attack the credibility of the prosecution and ALL of their evidence. poolmom wrote: Ron, I disagree. Casey laughing is a totally inappropriate behavior. She was laughing because she knew she got away with murder, like she has gotten away with all the lying and stealing all her life. It's disgusting. That's what I love about this place.... we can all disagree!  I saw it and perceived one thing and you another. I love it! |
| All good points but my 2 cents worth-- There is something drastically wrong with the Justice System in this country--it is not about Justice--it is about games and winning and losing and getting re-elected! When a young mother disciplines her child in a Kroger store by spanking him on the bottom and someone takes offense and turns her in for child abuse--and SHE gets 15 years in prison--even though there were no bruises or marks on the child--opposed to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' argument here--something is sadly wrong. In the Kroger case it was an election year and YES all were re-elected! When you really think about this Jury's verdict--it really makes no sense at all-- The jury found her guilty of lying on 4 different counts--and she was lying about 'the disappearance of her little girl'--if they believed she lied and found her guilty of that----   why would she not be guilty of at least aggravated murder??? |
| Yes, I think that parents ought to be given wide latitude in raising their children as they see fit, including corporal punishment should they so choose. But the law is the law... change it if it's wrong. The jury verdict was 12 people from 100 miles away looking at the prosecutions case and unanimously deciding they hadn't met their burden of proof under the law. It's that simple. WHY they must have felt that way is complicated. BTW I have heard an interview with 1 alternate juror. He agreed 100% with the all of the verdicts, and when the interviewer said that there was a lot of evidence the alternate interrupted the interviewer and said "I STRONGLY disagree with that" quite emphatically. So make it 13-0. |
| Well I don't think I'm the only one who came to that conclusion. Instead of laughing she should be thinking about her murdered little girl who did not put herself in garbage bags and laundry bag from her own home and throw herself in a swamp a few hundred feet from her house. Why would any innocent mother lie to the police who are searching for her missing child? Sickening! Anyhow I'd rather talk about sheepies!  |
| Just saw on the news statement from Anthony family. They believe jury's verdict is justified by the evidence presented but THEY believe it was the wrong verdict. Her own father and mother believe she killed Caylee! |
| I believe her parents know the truth, also.Leaving the courtroom quickly after the verdict was read, spoke volumes to me. Casey was grinning because she beat the system.Unfortunately there was not enough evidence, without a doubt,to convict her. If she does have to spend more time in jail,which I doubt she will,she better hope she has the luxury of solitary confinement. Caylee's image will be imprinted in my brain forever and in my heart, I have a feeling of sorrow. Robin |
poolmom wrote: Just saw on the news statement from Anthony family. They believe jury's verdict is justified by the evidence presented but THEY believe it was the wrong verdict. Her own father and mother believe she killed Caylee! WOW  I didn't see that and personally I have not watched this BUT, I was floored that she will more than likely walk away in two days. I don't think this story is over and I hope that baby knows so many people were fighting for justice  |
| Look, if you want to make behavior a reason to charge someone with murder, then the father who tried to commit suicide is surely guilty of murdering his granddaughter. What grandfather tries to kill himself because his granddaughter has been killed? I mean, only guilty people are so filled with remorse that they attempt suicide. Right? Well, in MY opinion. I guess he should be glad I'm not the district attorney. Huh. Well not only in my opinion, the MOTHER OF THE CHILD believes he killed her, and OMG, the daughter of the man believes that he did it! Get the pitchforks out and the torches ready! What? You say I can't say such a thing? That his completely strange behavior isn't evidence of murder? Oh. I get it. Everyone who acts inappropriately is a murderer... better not have Asperger's Syndrome! You'll be a fall guy for everything since you don't know how to behave in accepted ways! Criminal trials require solid evidence of guilt. I have no idea if she did it or not... Of course I have no idea what "it" is... murder? Coverup of an accident? Something else? ...and neither did the jury. |
poolmom wrote: Just saw on the news statement from Anthony family. They believe jury's verdict is justified by the evidence presented but THEY believe it was the wrong verdict. They said NOTHING of the sort:Her own father and mother believe she killed Caylee! Quote: While the family may never know what has happened to Caylee Marie Anthony, they now have closure for this chapter of their life. They will now begin the long process of rebuilding their lives. They claim they don't know what happened.Despite the baseless defense chosen by Casey Anthony, the family believes that the Jury made a fair decision based on the evidence presented, the testimony presented, the scientific information presented and the rules that were given to them by the Honorable Judge Perry to guide them. The family hopes that they will be given the time by the media to reflect on this verdict and decide the best way to move forward privately. The family also wanted the public to know that if anyone wanted to honor Caylee by leaving stuffed animals or other toys at any area near their home, that they would prefer those items be donated in Caylee's name to families in need, religious centers, or any other entity where the toys would be appreciated. |
| We won't know WHY the jurors chose "not guilty" until one of them comes forward and explains WHY. We may never know. |
sheepiezone wrote: All good points but my 2 cents worth-- There is something drastically wrong with the Justice System in this country--it is not about Justice--it is about games and winning and losing and getting re-elected! When a young mother disciplines her child in a Kroger store by spanking him on the bottom and someone takes offense and turns her in for child abuse--and SHE gets 15 years in prison--even though there were no bruises or marks on the child--opposed to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' argument here--something is sadly wrong. In the Kroger case it was an election year and YES all were re-elected! When you really think about this Jury's verdict--it really makes no sense at all-- The jury found her guilty of lying on 4 different counts--and she was lying about 'the disappearance of her little girl'--if they believed she lied and found her guilty of that---- why would she not be guilty of at least aggravated murder???I agree 10000%, Karen.... The jury convicted her of lying time and time again. So, Aggrevated Child Abuse was very evident and not argued by the defense. IF she would have told the truth in 2008/2009 the authorities MAY have found the REAL killer of Caylee.......on wait.....the real killer WAS the one lying...... I am disgusted with the way this went. But, karma is a BI##H and Casey will have to live with what she did. I am sure she is feeling very powerful today...there are not many people that get away the MURDER~~~~ |
sheepiezone wrote: When you really think about this Jury's verdict--it really makes no sense at all-- Suppose this... I call the police and say:The jury found her guilty of lying on 4 different counts--and she was lying about 'the disappearance of her little girl'--if they believed she lied and found her guilty of that---- why would she not be guilty of at least aggravated murder???"I know exactly when Caylee's body was dumped in the swamp, and who did it. " I just lied. Did I kill Caylee? If the grandfather knew about it (and it was an accident ) and lied to police to cover it up, did he kill Caylee? I really don't see why the two need to be related, and apparently neither did the prosecution. They decided to charge her with 4 counts of it, separate from the murder charges.... Why did they charge her with that instead of a myriad of other charges they could have leveled at her? Don't you think that most suspects lie to the police during an investigation? How often are they charged with it as separate charges? Besides say... Martha Stewart and others where the prosecutors don't really have much else? Just still thinking about it. |
| My view on this is, since Casey did not alert the police to her daughter being missing for over a month, and actually NEVER called, ( her mom made the call), that is, in a real sense, neglect, ie child abuse. There was never any reason presented by the defense, nor was there any statements made that Casey DID call the police (which would be just another lie), ~ Let's say...The jury believed it was accidental drowning. Casey, by not calling for help, by desposing of her body in such a callous manner is child abuse! There are many times, more often than not, that 'accidents' are due to neglect...which again, is abuse. For Casey to be able to walk out of the courthouse free tomorrow is a miscarriage of justice. And, like OJ, we will be hearing her name again in the future...I just pray it is not because another child has been murdered at the hands of this monster. |
| Very good points,Val and I agree with you. Robin |
| There was so much behind the seens (meaning investigation) that we will never know..............??????? Why wasn't Caley's true father brought in and devulged ?? Through all the lies that Casey presented the TRUTH could never be found What was told to the investigators that could never be proven, so was never brought out ?? The Guy that found the body should of been a much larger peice of the puzzle ???? And if you don't have the evidence, convincing evidence, YOU MUST ACQUIT !! (like if the glove don't fit) |
sheepieshake wrote: Casey, by not calling for help, by desposing of her body in such a callous manner is child abuse! That's the thing Val. There was NO proof that Casey disposed of the body. I think many people are just assuming that. There was no fingerprints or DNA. Cannot assume. The prosecution could not show a matter or cause of death; they could not prove that Casey had a means to do it; the party girl motive was extremely weak at best; and they provided NO linkages between their assertions and the body. They were playing on people's emotions and heartstrings. But there is no place in a court room for those things. It's about hard, scientific evidence. And the prosecution did not present any of that. Does it suck? It sure does. But if you want to be angry at the outcome, don't blame the jury. They did a magnificent job. Place the blame where it belongs. Squarely on the prosecution. |
| Sorry Mark...I have to blame the jury... They were the ones that decided her fate. And, all I am saying is that you are right, there was no cause of death due to the decomposition of the body. There was no DNA due to the same thing. BUT....Although there was NOT enough evidence for Murder 1 BUT...Aggrevated Child Abuse????? There was plenty of evidence...Everything said about the months before Caylee was reported missing proves negligence on Casey..ONLY Casey..no one else. My only hope is that, as soon as Judge Perry releases her with time served for her 4 charges of lying... that she will be rearrested for check fraud and felony theft (the money taken from her grandfathers nursing home escrow account~~The reason Cindy made the 1st call to 911)..So, maybe she will go to prison on a totally unrelated charge...WOULDN'T THAT BE SO IRONIC??????? |
| one last thing from me...Here is the Florida Statute for Aggravated Child Abuse... IMO, Casey Anthonly willfully committed Aggravated Child Abuse which resulted in her 2 year old Caylee death. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/ind ... 27.03.html |
sheepieshake wrote: one last thing from me...Here is the Florida Statute for Aggravated Child Abuse... IMO, Casey Anthonly willfully committed Aggravated Child Abuse which resulted in her 2 year old Caylee death. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/ind ... 27.03.html Unfortunately, none of that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury had no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the perpetrator. (Also, we'd have to be looking at the statutes from 2008...no idea if they changed or not.) |
| I would like to see very specific things happen to her. Why would ANYONE who calls themselves a parent Chloroform a child? For any reason. She should NEVER EVER be allowed to bring another child into this world nor be able to profit in any way from this whole ordeal. And if the family thinks they need protection, hire their own security!!! How soon do you think she will be out partying again? |
| Based on not reporting your child missing for 31 days is unconscionable. Seen out partying instead of frantically looking for your child,well is also, unconscionable. Whoever disposed of that poor toddlers body knew what they were doing. We talk about our beloved pets on this forum,so imagine if your pet was missing for 31 days. What would you do about your pet? As passionate as we are about our pets I can honestly say I know what I would be doing if my pet was missing for 5 minutes. My point is, if a persons pet is missing for 5 minutes that person looks and calls the proper people to help find the pet unless that person already knows what happened to the pet. Why did Casey wait 31 days to report her child missing? If anything, she should be charged with neglect and her and her parents all lied,not just to law enforcement, but on the stand. Why are the Anthony's not charged with anything? As far as making money from this, she already has. I believe it was ABC that paid for exclusive pictures and I am sure there will be more money to be made.CNN has already reported Casey will be living with a distant relative in Houston. Robin |
| I agree with everything you are saying Robin. She got her special tatoo the day BEFORE she admitted to her mom that Calyee had been missing for 31 days!!! ...????? I really hope she will not have a moments peace no matter where she moves to. |
dogmom wrote: Why would ANYONE who calls themselves a parent Chloroform a child? Again. That was never proven. That was a prosecution CLAIM. They were unable to prove that she did that. People talk of the 84 chloroform searches but cross examination by the defense proved that it was only 1 Google search. Just because someone searches for chloroform once does not make them a killer. Hell, how many times have we, after seeing something weird on TV or reading something weird in a book/newspaper/website etc, said "that can't be real. I'm gonna look that up". And so we go on-line and look up some weird stuff. Does that mean we're murderers? |
CamVal1 wrote: Hell, how many times have we, after seeing something weird on TV or reading something weird in a book/newspaper/website etc, said "that can't be real. I'm gonna look that up". And so we go on-line and look up some weird stuff. Does that mean we're murderers? Haha! As a matter of fact, after hearing some testimony on TV I did searches for chlorophyll and chloroform. I further predict that many people will now perform a search for Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis |
| Saw an interview with one of the jury members. She said - and I quote " She was physically sick to have to render the verdict that she did" She felt they had let down a little girl who deserved justice. She also said that they got the case too late. After the remains had decomposed to the point that no one could determine the cause of death, it was impossible to give a sentence. She had no "joy" at all. |
| Last night I saw an interview with -- Marcia Clark! Yes, Marcia Clark of the failed OJ case fame! Marcia Clark who couldn't get a conviction in a case that should have been a slam dunk. Marcia Clark who couldn't get a conviction against OJ "because he was a celebrity", even though he is now serving 30 years for another offense where the prosecution didn't have ANY problem convicting him. Marcia Clark who was lecturing on what THIS prosecution team did wrong!! She was prattling on about some nonsense, frankly I stopped listening to her as she just wasn't getting it. They had the exact same scenario here -- a high profile, no eyewitness case. They just don't seem to understand that holding a jury hostage for months and bringing in every shred of weak evidence ruins your case, it makes it look like you are "trying too hard" and it calls into question everything. They made the same exact mistakes that she did, and she just doesn't recognize it. I saw the elected state prosecutor praising his attorneys, saying "we presented every bit of evidence we had." Exactly!!! THAT WAS THE PROBLEM and you don't get it either. What you didn't do was lay out a single, clear, provable theory on what happened. You claimed she intentionally killed her child and couldn't prove that. You excluded the possibility that it was an accident as the defense was inferring, so when you couldn't prove the higher charge the jury had nothing to fall back on. The people didn't deserve to hear you praise your team's strategy, the public deserved apologetic humility for your abject failure. As far as the joy issue -- I did not see the interview with a juror, but I wouldn't expect someone in the middle of all of that to have joy. Ask someone whose parents were interned here in this country just 70 years years ago if they think the government should lower the standards for taking away someone's liberty. Ask someone from Argentina if the government ought to be restricted from disappearing their citizens. Ask someone whose ancestors were rounded up in Europe during WWII if the government should be restrained. Ask one of the descendents of Che's reign of terror if the powers that be should stand people up against the wall and execute them when someone is guilty in the mind of the the powers that be. And yes.... ask someone who has been held incommunicado and indefinitely in Guantanamo for the last 10 years if they think the government ought to be able to deprive people of their liberty without a trial where the outcome isn't predetermined. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|