Casey Anthony Trial Verdict

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Sparhawk We can all speculate on the guilt but fact is that if the evidence was not there she should not be sentenced for the crime she MAY have committed. The reason for this is that you are considered to be innocent until proven guilty, simply put if you want to be an american and not an iranian ( in terms of freedom rights ) then this is the price you have to pay from time to time. I don't assume about peoples guilt, as somebody once told me "Assumptions are the mother of all ■■■■-ups!"

Totally agree.

[robertthebard]

I would have made a perfect juror for that case. The first I'd heard of it was that she was found not guilty, and I didn't even know who she was. Reading around the web on some of the prosecutor's statements, one which I cannot site now, as I don't remember where I read it, that stated that they had a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence, and was surprised that that wasn't enough to get a conviction. I'm a bit confused by his statement, since as a prosecutor, he knows he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she deliberately killed her child. From what I've read, with no saturation bias, I don't know if she did or didn't, and frankly neither did the jury. The failure here is on the prosecutor/law enforcement.

Self destructive behavior should not be an immediate indicator that there is no grief. In fact, that same behavior would be seen as indication of grief, if people weren't already convinced that she did it. So she self-medicated with alcohol, but she's not feeling any grief? While I won't pretend to know what's going on in her head, I do know that I have seen the wives/GF's of people I grew up with doing the same kinds of things, only I know full well they didn't kill their husbands. Two of which died in m/c accidents. So while some may indeed find the behavior shocking, it's not uncommon.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I've seen cases where people killed their kids and displayed nothing BUT fake remorse, tears and worry. Fake tears do not an innocent person make. If she didn't want the kid, she could have put it up for adoption. Why bother with murder?

I agree completely. Susan Smith is a perfect example. When her story first broke, I told my ex "SHE killed the kids because her boss/bf didn't want a relationship with kids attached", but when I saw her on TV with the boys father bawling her eyes out I thought "Well, maybe I was wrong." NOPE, turns out I was right the first time.

I have no idea whether Casey killed Caylee herself or just took advantage of her falling in the pool, but I have no doubt at all that Casey viewed her daughter as more of a hindrance to her lifestyle rather than the precious daughter she was and - at the very least - was grateful on some level to have that problem removed.

People may grieve differently but losing a child is completely different than losing a spouse and no normal parent would wait a month to report their child missing, much less go clubbing and entering "Hot Body" contests while supposedly not knowing the fate of their child. Just doesn't pass the sniff test at all. And I think the prosecution relied on that fact too much, so they didn't present the evidence as solidly as they could. I think they felt they only had to show all the circumstantial evidence and the jurors would feel she was guilty anyway, so it would just be a formality.

Bottom line is the prosecution didn't do their job. Whether it was laziness, sloppiness and just ignorance is debatable. Likely it was a combination of all three. From what I've seen in the last two days, MOST of the jurors DID feel Casey was guilty, but also felt the prosecution did not PROVE her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so they had no choice but to return a verdict of "Not Guilty".

I was shocked by that, but I do have to give them credit for putting their personal feelings aside and judging the case solely on the evidence presented.

[SpiritWarrior]

Yeah i'm just talking about her killing her, I have no doubt she is a terrible mother her priorities geared toward partying and "getting F-up up". But there are easier ways of getting children out of the way without offing them. I'm not sure though why you think the prosecution didn't do their job...what do did you want them to find her guilty of, the child abuse charge you mean?

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by Cerek I agree completely. Susan Smith is a perfect example. When her story first broke, I told my ex "SHE killed the kids because her boss/bf didn't want a relationship with kids attached", but when I saw her on TV with the boys father bawling her eyes out I thought "Well, maybe I was wrong." NOPE, turns out I was right the first time. I have no idea whether Casey killed Caylee herself or just took advantage of her falling in the pool, but I have no doubt at all that Casey viewed her daughter as more of a hindrance to her lifestyle rather than the precious daughter she was and - at the very least - was grateful on some level to have that problem removed. People may grieve differently but losing a child is completely different than losing a spouse and no normal parent would wait a month to report their child missing, much less go clubbing and entering "Hot Body" contests while supposedly not knowing the fate of their child. Just doesn't pass the sniff test at all. And I think the prosecution relied on that fact too much, so they didn't present the evidence as solidly as they could. I think they felt they only had to show all the circumstantial evidence and the jurors would feel she was guilty anyway, so it would just be a formality. Bottom line is the prosecution didn't do their job. Whether it was laziness, sloppiness and just ignorance is debatable. Likely it was a combination of all three. From what I've seen in the last two days, MOST of the jurors DID feel Casey was guilty, but also felt the prosecution did not PROVE her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so they had no choice but to return a verdict of "Not Guilty". I was shocked by that, but I do have to give them credit for putting their personal feelings aside and judging the case solely on the evidence presented.

Exactly. Justice has run it's course.

[VulcanRider]

And now the news stations are bitching that the judge won't release ID on the jurors, claiming that's a violation of Florida's "Sunshine Laws" for open government. Well, gee. People have written death threats against the jury, but I suppose that's less important than a ratings boost for the nightly news... The judge said he just wants to wait for a cooling off period. This soap opera won't die...

[Ladyzekke]

Well I have to say, I recorded and watched a lot of the trial on TruTV the first week or so (it got boring at times though so I just watched recaps later on).

The evidence the prosecutors presented was pretty heavy, although again all circumstantial.

Child "disappeared" for 31 days and mom said nothing during all that time. Only when mom's Mom asked about the child did she finally confess she didn't know where her child was, and that she was taken by this nanny called Zeniada.

Well later on Mom confessed, and it was proven, there was no such nanny. So now child is gone and nobody knows wtf. When police were investigating right after it was reported, Mom was still lying saying "oh the nanny took her, and she worked at Universal Studios where I work." (she lied she still worked at Universal stuidos presently). So cops took her to Universal Studios where they found no Zenaida ever worked there, plus Mom didn't either cept for 3 years prior before they fired her. Mom also talked about some person who worked at Universal Studios that was her boyfriend for a time, and later it was proved this guy only knew her casually but never dated her, nevertheless was her boyfriend). Finally after Mom figured she got caught lying at that point, she just said "I don't know where Caylee is, last time I saw her Zenaida had/took her (who, again, didn't exist.).

Mom's parents also found Mom's car parked near a dumster, and took it home before they called police, and said it smelled like a dead body was in the trunk. A worker who towed the car also said it stunk really bad like death. Also later, cops and forensic dogs also detected the smell of death from the trunk. Of course a bag of garbage with a little bit of food in it was also in the trunk (a distraction?) and that could have been the cause of the smell, although everyone who smelled it said it was too bad to have been just your usual garbage rot smell.

They also found traces of chloroform in the trunk, but also apparently chloroform is a natural substance that could have been there for other reasons besides a criminal reason (although experts said the high level of chloroform detected was too much to be just regular occurences, that it had to be from pure chloroform of an unnatural way).

Then the cops had taken the computer from the Mom's parent's house (Mom lived there at the time, only PC she had access to and used often) and found many searches for "how to make chloroform, neck breaking, internal injuries, and many other kind of morbid searches. All of these searches had been deleted, but the PC experts were able to get these things anyway. Prosection theorized the Mom did those searches, but later on at the end of the trial, Mom's mom said she did them, but her job had records of her company's PC use and said Mom's mom was at work when those searches were done. So many think Mom's mom was just lying to the jury to try to save her daughter from the death penalty by lying, or to at least to create reasonable doubt.

Tesimony from friends of Mom said during those days the child was missing, mom acted normal and partied as if nothing was wrong, even though later Mom confessed she knew her child was dead at the time (Because she drowned and her dad covered it up if you go by her defense).

When the child's skull was found (unfortunately so much time had gone by, and with the warm temps of Florida and a hurricane flooded the area) there wasn't much left for forensics to go on as to how the child died. They did find duct tape that was stuck to the child's mouth area on the skull that was overlapped and wrapped in a circle. They also found a little pink heart sticker nearby which matched stickers found in Mom's bedroom. Child was also found in an area where Mom and her friends used to bury their pets, putting pink heart stickers on them.

So the trial starts years later and you are wondering what the defense will be. Well, the defense first said that Mom said her father found the Child drowned in their above ground pool, and blamed Mom for not watching the child. Of course you gotta think she couldn't use the "nanny took her" defense at that point since it was proven this nanny didn't exist. So the defense talked vaguely of this drowning that happend, and they said no more about it aftewards (including no mention of it in closing statements), and that would mean Mom's dad decided to not call an ambulance, and to just dump the child's body (he was an ex-cop). Then later during the trial, the defense said that Mom was abused as a kid by her dad and brother, and that is why she lies so much, including a list of all her "imaginary friends".

While watching this, you are going "hey, what about her being taken by this nanny?" which was the first defence Mom said re the child missing. Now we have two different explanations that don't even match up.

In the end, one cannot come up with any other explanation other than Mom killed her and is just flailing and doing her usual lying to try to put blame on someone else. But again, because there was no actual, physical proof, the jury had no choice other than to say Not Guilty.

Was a very compelling trial with all of the testimony much like OJ, so why it has become such a popular entity with everyone. I read that on Facebook posts alone at least 300,000 people think she is guilty, and only 600 feel she is not. They are already talking about which actors will portray everyone if a movie is made (Kristen Stewart was suggested to play Mom).

The only thing you can think is Mom knows what happened, but told so many lies no telling what really happened. We will most likely never know. And because of that, you can't blame the jury for abiding by the laws, as awful and frustrating as it is. I have been on Jury Duty twice in my life, and glad my "cases" were just traffic violations. You truly have to go by the laws to the letter and cannot go by common sense or perceived obviousness, but concrete facts unfortunately.

[Cerek]

Nice summary, Lady Z. When you lay all the evidence and Casey's actions out like that, it seems pretty clear the only logical explanation for Caylee's disappearance is that Casey killed her.

Leaving her parent's house with Caylee, then telling lies for the next 31 days about where Caylee is every time the parents call (which was when she invented the fantasy nanny story), lies to the police about the nanny and her job at Universal Studios, the boyfriend, etc. Every time Casey was caught in a lie, she clung to it tenaciously until there was simply no way to deny it any more (such as her supposed job at Universal), then she just created a new lie to explain the old lie. The thing is, she obviously is not very good at coming up with lies, because these were easy to check out and prove false, but it still wasted several hours of manpower effort by the police.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence; the smell of "death" in the trunk of the car, the presence of chloroform, the internet searches for chloroform, neck breaking, internal injuries, etc, and a dairy entry dated after Caylee was last seen alive by the parents stating (in effect) "I am finally free to do what I want. I know I've made the right decision, I just hope I don't get in trouble for it. I'll have to wait and see what happens." When you add all of these to the duct tape, heart sticker, trash bag, etc, it seems like it should be pretty damning, but the defense must have done a good job of casting reasonable doubt on much of the evidence.

While the diary entry was dated in July (after Caylee had disappeared), the defense claims it was actually written in 03 after Casey began a relationship with a new boyfriend. Even though this proved to be the coworker that only knew her casually, the prosecution could not prove the entry wasn't written in 03. Same thing with the PC internet searches. While that might have been the only PC Casey had access to, she was not the only one who had access to the PC. She might have been "restricted" to one PC, but that PC wasn't "restricted" to only one user. And once Grandma claimed she did the internet searches, there was no way for the prosecution to refute it. Grandma most likely did lie to protect Casey, but the computer techs couldn't say for absolute certain Casey was the one sitting at the PC when the searches were done.

As you pointed out, time, a hurricane and Florida's climate destroyed a lot of the physical and forensic evidence that could have made it much easier to convict Casey. I still wonder if the prosecution felt the case was open-and-shut due to all the media attention combined with the mountain of circumstantial evidence presented, but I guess we have to assume they did the best job they could with what they had. I, personally, would have liked to see Casey convicted of first-degree murder or at least manslaughter. As one of the prosecution attorney's pointed out (regarding ex-cop Grandpa discovering the drowned body and covering it up), nobody tries to "cover up" an accident and make it LOOK like a murder. Instead, they try to make a murder look like an accident. I think that any reasonable person would agree the story of Grandpa helping to dump the body just doesn't make any sense. Even is he was trying to protect case (after supposedly molesting her for years), he would have tried to stage the scene to make it look even more like an accident, or so one would think.

As for the charge of aggravated child abuse, I didn't see anything on the TV or information I read to really substantiate that (although I could have missed something along the way). I think she was callously indifferent and completely self-centered, but that isn't the same as child abuse, much less "aggravated" abuse.

[SpiritWarrior]

Well isn't there something like child negligence? I wondered why something like this wasn't in there since they were going with "accidental death". If it was accidental, i'd wager she wasn't watching the kid anyways. But I guess if they wanted murder they couldn't accuse her of neglect because that would abscond her of it. I believe them when they said her kid was simply "in the way", only because her past actions that she admits to support that. But most people who's kids get in their way neglect and ignore them rather than end their lives. We all know ppl who don't give a hoot about their kids. IDK, too much in this case. Glad it's over.

[Timber Loftis]

In Illinois it's a crime to leave a child (I think under 10) unattended.

There is a good outcome to this case. Many states are now making it a crime to not report a missing child. So, yeah, maybe some random person in FL wiggled out of a conviction -- due mostly to the decomposition of the remains and lack of evidence -- but at least there are measures being taken to prevent this from happening again.

I like what the prosecutor said: Who covers up an accident by making it look like a murder?