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.
The duct tape was evidence that it was no accident. There are no know incidents of an accidental child death where duct tape was wrapped around the mouth.
It could not be proven that the duct tape was around the mouth.
Quote:
All of the defense attempts to explain the duct tape were incredibly weak.
The duct tape was evidence that it was no accident. There are no know incidents of an accidental child death where duct tape was wrapped around the mouth. There are literally thousands of murders where the victims were found with duct tape on them. All of the defense attempts to explain the duct tape were incredibly weak.
There were serious problems with the duct tape. First, it wasn't long enough to wrap around the head. It wasn't found on Caylee's skull, Roy Kronk testified that the head rolled out of the bag and he saw no tape. There was DNA on the tape but preliminary test showed that the DNA belonged to neither Caylee nor Casey. It was wasn't stained with decomp. There was testimony about how the Anthony family buried pets in plastic bags with duct tape used to seal the top, and how George Anthony was a frequent user of duct tape.
Obviously you are a person who "always has to be right" and there are many things that I don't care to know but a baby dumped on the side of the road with duct tape in the area where her mouth and nose USE TO BE is not one of them.
Now get in the last word because that is VERY important to those people who "always have to be right".
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNLV09
I can understand how the jury couldn't convict her on first degree murder. However, I think that the circumstantial evidence coupled with the evidence in the trunk was enough to get her on manslaughter. The popular theory going around right now is that you NEED to show how the victim died and DIRECTLY link that evidence to the suspect to get a conviction. This is not true. Neither of these were established in the Scott Peterson case and he was found guilty. Scott Peterson's motive, the evidence that was found in his boat and his suspicious actions were enough for the jury to conclude that he was responsible. In the same sense I think that Casey's motive was adequately shown, there was evidence of human decomposition in her trunk, and her suspicious actions after the dissapearance/death of her child were enough for anyone to conclude that she was involved in the unlawful death of her child.
However, I still can understand, based on the lack of hard evidence, how the jury could not convict on manslaughter, even though I would have. What is the real tragedy however is that it is not a more severe crime to not report your child dead or missing and to lie to law enforcement during a missing person investigation. These should all be serious felony charges and she should have been given a very long prison sentence. People who do such things have no place in our society and are a danger to others and an obstruction to our justice system. Either way you look at it, the justice system didn't work.
Great post! Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNLV09
The duct tape was evidence that it was no accident. There are no know incidents of an accidental child death where duct tape was wrapped around the mouth. There are literally thousands of murders where the victims were found with duct tape on them. All of the defense attempts to explain the duct tape were incredibly weak.
Obviously they couldn't come up with a defense about the duct tape, so they skirted the issue and substituted it with a molestation or two. They threw the jury off, that was the plan. I think that GA was in on that and was willing to take that fall. He could deny it. What does anyone really care about that now? But, his daughter was not convicted and that was the goal. I cannot say with absolute certainty, that I would not do the same for any of my children.
Obviously they couldn't come up with a defense about the duct tape, so they skirted the issue and substituted it with a molestation or two.
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt30
There were serious problems with the duct tape. First, it wasn't long enough to wrap around the head. It wasn't found on Caylee's skull, Roy Kronk testified that the head rolled out of the bag and he saw no tape. There was DNA on the tape but preliminary test showed that the DNA belonged to neither Caylee nor Casey. It was wasn't stained with decomp. There was testimony about how the Anthony family buried pets in plastic bags with duct tape used to seal the top, and how George Anthony was a frequent user of duct tape.
I think that GA was in on that and was willing to take that fall. He could deny it. What does anyone really care about that now? But, his daughter was not convicted and that was the goal. I cannot say with absolute certainty, that I would not do the same for any of my children.
It was a perfect example of juries which may go against the burden of proof and convict anyway. It happens, and since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is subjective there is nothing that can be done about it.
In this case, the jury stuck much closer to the legal standard.
Gotta love the lynch mob acting like they are the reasonable ones.
Just stating facts, and giving an example of those facts, that you said were not possible under law.
It's extremely clear that you are in the minority with your beliefs. This certainly makes people like you fit into a very small percentage that are viewed as being unreasonable - not 'reasonable ones'. Face it, your belief is unpopular, unreasonable and it has been proven to you that you are wrong. You don't have to like it, but you should accept this fact instead of continuing to argue about it as if you are right...when it's clear you are not.
Don't know if anyone has said this or not since I'm a late comer to this thread & I didn't bother to read all 67 pgs, but I have a simple answer why the verdict was not guilty. The jurors were tired & wanted to go home. It's as simple as that. Six weeks of a trial is overwhelming for anyone, & a verdict of 1st degree murder would've meant a 2nd trial, something they wanted no parts of. This is what happens when courts have a trial that last for weeks & weeks, the jury becomes sick of it & they simple want it to end so they can resume their lives. Will they ever admit to it, of course not, they'll come up with all kinds of bs reasons why they felt she was innocent, yet we all know including them she was anything other than innocent. So now they've set the psychopath free to run amok & wreck havoc & mayhem on some other innocent victim. Oh yeah, she'll lay low for a few years then she'll be back in the news for commiting some other heinous act. You just wait & see.
I think one of the main weaknesses of the jury was buying into Jose's claim that George Anthony was involved. And the worst part is, Juror 3 and the alternate juror even stated that they believed this because of the way George was acting, not because of any evidence that was presented. George Anthony was an ex cop, and cops don't like defense attorneys, I know because I come from a family of cops. Plus he was being accused of molesting his daughter, covering up the death of his grandaughter and then trying to profit it off of it. Who wouldn't be defensive? I would have gotten up and punched Jose Baez right in his face and done the jail time for it. GA was much more cordial than I would have been. Then Juror number 3 said "It seemed like he had something to hide", yeah, that he had an affair with a volunteer. That's why he was so nervous up there and being so vague. That's what he was hiding, not involvement in his granddaughters death. Then Juror number 3 says "In the jail tapes the mom was asking all the questions and George was sitting there just patting her back," what?! Does that dumb broad not remember when GA kept pressing Casey asking her if there was any information she could give that would help, and then he tried to coerce her to speak to an FBI agent?? And what type of reasonable sense does it make that an ex-homicide investigator wouldn't report the accidental death of his granddaughter, but would throw the body in a garbage bag and toss it in the woods right down the street? Even dumb mobsters know how to dispose of bodies better than that!
I can see how they couldn't convict on murder 1 because of lack of evidence, but there are many other reasons why I feel that jury was gullible and stupid.
I think the problem is that without a cause of death, it's impossible to decide if it was first degree murder, manslaughter or she's covering up for someone else or hiding an accidental death. You can't convict her unless you are sure, beyond reasonable doubt, what you are convicting her for. While I think it's certain, beyond reasonable doubt, she's guilty of something, just what is that something? Unfortunately, guilty of something wasn't one of their choices.
I am surprised the child abuse charge came back not guilty. Not bothering to report your "missing" child for 31 days ought to be considered child abuse.
I think one of the main weaknesses of the jury was buying into Jose's claim that George Anthony was involved. And the worst part is, Juror 3 and the alternate juror even stated that they believed this because of the way George was acting, not because of any evidence that was presented. George Anthony was an ex cop, and cops don't like defense attorneys, I know because I come from a family of cops. Plus he was being accused of molesting his daughter, covering up the death of his grandaughter and then trying to profit it off of it. Who wouldn't be defensive? I would have gotten up and punched Jose Baez right in his face and done the jail time for it. GA was much more cordial than I would have been. Then Juror number 3 said "It seemed like he had something to hide", yeah, that he had an affair with a volunteer. That's why he was so nervous up there and being so vague. That's what he was hiding, not involvement in his granddaughters death. Then Juror number 3 says "In the jail tapes the mom was asking all the questions and George was sitting there just patting her back," what?! Does that dumb broad not remember when GA kept pressing Casey asking her if there was any information she could give that would help, and then he tried to coerce her to speak to an FBI agent?? And what type of reasonable sense does it make that an ex-homicide investigator wouldn't report the accidental death of his granddaughter, but would throw the body in a garbage bag and toss it in the woods right down the street? Even dumb mobsters know how to dispose of bodies better than that!
I can see how they couldn't convict on murder 1 because of lack of evidence, but there are many other reasons why I feel that jury was gullible and stupid.
I had a feeling it would come down to things like this causing their verdict, not anything that was proven.
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.
They threw the jury off, that was the plan. I think that GA was in on that and was willing to take that fall. He could deny it. What does anyone really care about that now? But, his daughter was not convicted and that was the goal. I cannot say with absolute certainty, that I would not do the same for any of my children.
