Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh for the love of all that's sane -- sexual abuse in childhood does NOT mean you have to smother your toddler to death and leave her body in the woods like a rodent carcass.
I don't believe for a moment that her father sexually abused her either. She's a psychopath.
I agree.
What a lame excuse.
It give her no right to murder her own child.
She is a nutcase and needs to be left in a padded cell for the rest of her life.
They are looking for anything they can to change the subject matter.
two wrongs don't make a right.. if she killed her little girl.. she is sick.. it's not about you or I's anger over it.. it's about addressing the issue at hand.. the girl is gone, she was killed, and her sick mother will or won't be found guilty of it. If she is, then I pity her really.. she will spend a LONG time in prison knowing that the whole reason she is in there is because she took the life of someone innocent...worse yet her own child. Justice Served. Killing someone makes You and I feel good about the situation.. but really it's the easy way out for the offender.. owning up for the rest of your life for what you did is about the best and worst it can really get
With the exception that in this case, Anthony showed no concern or regret about her child until she was caught. She didn't care. Do you really think that death will be on her mind as anything except as an unfair reason for depriving her of liberty? She likely would just go her merry way in prison and never think about it again. IMO
I think the people in jury are going to fall for it.
If there is even a grain of truth to her being sexually abused by her father the jury is going to believe she's not be right in the head and prone to acting like things never happened. They will think that this created a culture of lying and deceit in the Anthony family home because of her father's sexual abuse.
Because everyone has the right to a trial no matter how much evidence the prosecution has incase you forgot.
I hope the jury doesn't buy this 'new' eveidence. If anyone deserves the death penalty it is her.
Why?
If you don't have enough evidence to get a conviction, why would uyou bring it to court? The paralegal in me feels that it's a fair question, don't you?
Saying she was sexually molested by her father casts alot of doubt in the picture the prosecution is trying to paint.
Have you not listened to any of the jail tapes and her conversation she had w/ her father? If you had, you'd see that this in not a case of sexual abuse. The jury arern't going to fall for it. They're hearing all the lies Casey has told and the total lack of emotion over her daughter. Her friend, Lazzaro already testified that her deep secret had nothing to do w/ her dad, but Lee.
The charge is a red herring - meant to distract the jury. There is a reason the defense never brought it up in his case except in opening arguments, not in examination of any of the family members, absolutely no evidence at all. It's almost like this charge totally dissapeared from the defenses case after day 1. Don't expect it to be brought up again except in maybe closing arguments - again as a red herring.
Seriously, everyone should see through that, the jurors as well. But you never know, it only takes one lone jury with a doubt.
Saying she was sexually molested by her father casts alot of doubt in the picture the prosecution is trying to paint.
It's more than likely done in attempt to sway jury opinion in the penalty phase of the trial because the same jury used in the guilt determining phase will also be used in the penalty phase. It's a mitigating circumstance that the prosecution will have to rebut to convince the jury Casey deserves the death penalty.
The charge is a red herring - meant to distract the jury.
Absolutely! Mark Geragos tried to do the same thing in the Peterson trial when he introduced the "kidnapped by gypsies" theory. All of it done to take his client out of the limelight. Clever but pointless. Facts are facts and evidence is evidence ... even if circumstantial. All one can hope is that the jury sees beyond the courtroom games.
Absolutely! Mark Geragos tried to do the same thing in the Peterson trial when he introduced the "kidnapped by gypsies" theory. All of it done to take his client out of the limelight. Clever but pointless. Facts are facts and evidence is evidence ... even if circumstantial. All one can hope is that the jury sees beyond the courtroom games.
And it's telling the claims have totally dissapeared from the trial after day 1, not to be discussed in court again.
People get convicted of otherwise circumstantial evidence all the time. No body (not in this case, but in other cases), no physical evidence, no problem - "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a slippery slope, up to each jurer to define regardless of the legal definition. The defense may have doomed itself by claiming the girl died by drowning and that Casey know it. Now the jury's have only two options - to consider the unlikely claim that it was all accidental, aided by her father, and Casey was afraid to admit it, or that it was first degree murder by Casey...and any option of claiming it was murder by an outside party, however unlikely, is off the table.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
