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.
I think you're making the evidence stronger than it was.
There were 4 people that lived or had access to the Anthony home, any of which could have been the last to see her alive.
Casey had gone out to nightclubs long before her child went missing. She's also lied, esp. about her employment and the nanny, long before her child went missing.
It wasn't clear from the evidence that duct tape was found around the mouth. Investigators did find duct tape but Roy Kronk testified that the skull rolled out of a bag and was in a different position than originally found. Also the tape wasn't long enough to rap all the way around the head. If it was actually on her face there's a good chance is was put on after the girl died, it was so short it would have been an easy thing to pull off. Additionally there was no DNA on the tape, presumably there should have been decomp liquids all over it had it been on her face.
Casey SAID she had taken Caylee to the nanny. Casey SAID the nanny kidnapped Caylee. Therefore...didn't Casey admit to being the last one to see Caylee?
I doubt the duct tape was put on Caylee's ARM but even if the duct tape was on the bag...WHO had Caylee last? Someone had to put her in the bag and throw the bag in the swamp. And again, WHO had Caylee?
While the stunning Casey Anthony acquittal defied logic, O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark details how juries often delude themselves—and why this verdict trumps even her case.
I watched much of the trial and I must say I also wasn't convinced on the homicide charges. To address an earlier point, I think interpretation of evidence is always colored by a person's life and experience (regardless whether one is familiar with the law or not), so no two people will ever come to the exact same conclusion when each has a slightly different perspective. Full disclosure: I'm a law student at a very well known school but I don't think that gives me any special insight.
The biggest problem for the prosecution was the lack of a specific theory of the crime.
Cindy and George had credibility issues that went unresolved. The prosecutions experts were not entirely consistent. We heard from one prosecution expert that chloroform in the trunk of the car could be from decomposition. We heard from another that gasoline and biological compounds can create chloroform when mixed. No blow flies were found in the trunk and the carpet was free of any decomp liquids. We also heard that the person who towed Casey's car found a bag of maggot infested trash in the trunk - there's no question it stunk but how much stink is from "death" and how much from maggot infested trash? Also it was not clear that the car was exclusively Casey's since George and Cindy had keys to the car.
The strongest evidence (I think) was the cadaver dogs. Even then, the defense essentially conceded that a body may have been in the car.
It's not clear the duct tape was on the skulls face when found. Roy Kronk testified that he picked up the bag and the skull rolled out. Also, members of the family said they used duct tape to seal bags when they buried dead animals. Not only that but duct tape was in the family garage and George used it to seal his gas cans and put up posters when Caylee was "missing." Casey did not have exclusive access to duct tape nor did she purchase any.
We were told that Casey Anthony could have made chloroform but no materials necessarily to make it were found; no receipts for the ingredients to make it were presented.
Anther thing is that Casey had showed no signs of abusing Caylee and everyone who testified knew about Caylee (including Casey's then-boyfriend) and said Casey was a good mother - it wasn't a secret. The partying evidence was also vastly overstated. I think the record shows Casey went out once or twice during the time her daughter was missing and some testimony indicated that she may have worked there as a kind of promoter.
It was a difficult case but I think the right verdict was reached.
So just because she was a good mother means she could not possibly kill her daughter? Where is the logic in that? There are cases all the time of so called "good mothers" killing thier kids. Also do you not think her boyfriend and others could lie about her being a good mother? Her partying is big in that she cared more about going out and having fun then looking for her daughter who was missing. What good mother would be out partying when their child was missing.
Last edited by Storm Eagle; 07-06-2011 at 11:15 AM..
Casey SAID she had taken Caylee to the nanny. Casey SAID the nanny kidnapped Caylee. Therefore...didn't Casey admit to being the last one to see Caylee?
I doubt the duct tape was put on Caylee's ARM but even if the duct tape was on the bag...WHO had Caylee last? Someone had to put her in the bag and throw the bag in the swamp. And again, WHO had Caylee?
Vicki
Well you can't have it both ways. Either she was lying and no one but members of the family know who last saw Caylee, or she was telling the truth and was the last one to see her.
To make an analogy, if my dentist is on Main street and I lie and say that I went to the dentist, does that necessarily mean I was on Main street? Would that change if an eyewitness saw me getting into my car and drive in that direction?
Are you saying it's not at all reasonable or possible that she wasn't the last one to see her alive?
The only thing that makes me sick sick sick at this point is that this psychotic young woman will go back on the streets, and just get pregnant again. that to me is the biggest injustice of this verdict. These people on the jury just signed another death sentence to a yet to be born child. At best if she doesn't kill the next one she will surely screw it up big time. Just what we need. Another society's child to deal with from a psychopathic sex and baby machine. I wonder what her parents think of her now. How could her father possibly feel safe getting near her or her next child ever again? And when the next kid comes who will take care of that one? What kind of jurors were these people? I am absolutely astonished they let her off scott-free. Not even 2nd degree murder? There were not going to be any race repurcussions here, like in the OJ trial. There was no historical payback. No tit for tat. What were these people thinking? No wonder none of the jurors will talk to anyone. They must be scared of the hate mail and threats they'll probably get from the loonies out there. Did they pick a bunch of rednecks or what on that jury? This trial will go down as a head scratcher. It does nothing for our justice system but make it look laughable, capricious, and arbitrary..................one more time !!
So just because she was a good mother means she could not possibly kill her daughter? Where is the logic in that? There are cases all the time of so called "good mothers" killing thier kids. Also do you not think her boyfriend and others could lie about her being a good mother? Her partying is big in that she cared more about going out and haing fun then looking for her daughter who was missing. What good mother would be out partying when their child was missing.
The logic is that people who abuse their children are more likely to kill them. And conversely, those people that care for their children are less likely to kill them.
I suppose Casey's boyfriends could have lied, but what about her friends? Her parents? The seemingly normal home videos and pictures? I think the evidence showed very clearly that Casey did not abuse her daughter prior to the incident in question.
I'm not totally swayed by the partying argument either. She went out to nightclubs long before Caylee went missing.
Well you can't have it both ways. Either she was lying and no one but members of the family know who last saw Caylee, or she was telling the truth and was the last one to see her.
To make an analogy, if my dentist is on Main street and I lie and say that I went to the dentist, does that necessarily mean I was on Main street? Would that change if an eyewitness saw me getting into my car and drive in that direction?
Are you saying it's not at all reasonable or possible that she wasn't the last one to see her alive?
Casey said she had her and her parents said she had her. So, that adds up to Casey was the last one to see her that we know of. Obviously Zanny the nanny didn't see her. Maybe Casey sold her but Casey is still the last one WE know of that had her.
If there is a different story, why didn't Casey tell it? I didn't watch this trial from the beginning so DID CASEY TELL ANY STORY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO CAYLEE?
The logic is that people who abuse their children are more likely to kill them. And conversely, those people that care for their children are less likely to kill them.
I suppose Casey's boyfriends could have lied, but what about her friends? Her parents? The seemingly normal home videos and pictures? I think the evidence showed very clearly that Casey did not abuse her daughter prior to the incident in question.
I'm not totally swayed by the partying argument either. She went out to nightclubs long before Caylee went missing.
I totally understand that but that still does not mean abuse=guilty no abuse=not guilty. That is faulty logic.There are plenty of murder cases where the child was not abused was but was murdered. Again the fact is while her child was missing she was partying. It does not matter if she was partying before.
Casey said she had her and her parents said she had her. So, that adds up to Casey was the last one to see her that we know of. Obviously Zanny the nanny didn't see her. Maybe Casey sold her but Casey is still the last one WE know of that had her.
If there is a different story, why didn't Casey tell it? I didn't watch this trial from the beginning so DID CASEY TELL ANY STORY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO CAYLEE?
Vicki
Casey did not testify but the defense attorneys speaking for her said Caylee's death was an accident and George Anthony was the first to discover her. George and Cindy denied that, but they also were caught lying on the stand more than once. I did not know about these people prior to the trial, but they did seem untruthful and it was difficult to know what parts of thier testimony were honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984
I totally understand that but that still does not mean abuse=guilty no abuse=not guilty. That is faulty logic.There are plenty of murder cases where the child was not abused was but was murdered. Again the fact is while her child was missing she was partying. It does not matter if she was partying before.
Well according to the testimony at trial, Casey never believed her child was missing. In fact, she knew Caylee was dead. There was also some testimony that she managed the girls at these clubs and had some role in organizing them - I don't know if this was a regular job but some described it as work-like.
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.
