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'm not sure about that. The fact that she led the police around on a wild goose chase while her daughter might still have been alive (no evidence of exactly when she died) is enough evidence to get her for child neglect.
No, it's not. You want to see the charge thrown at her so she is punished regardless of whether or not it is applicable. There is absolutely zero support for this position as far as the law is concerned.
No, it's not. You want to see the charge thrown at her so she is punished regardless of whether or not it is applicable. There is absolutely zero support for this position as far as the law is concerned.
That's not true at all, and if you'll read the many posts I've had about Casey, you would understand that my position is based on fact and law, not emotion.
That's not true at all, and if you'll read the many posts I've had about Casey, you would understand that my position is based on fact and law, not emotion.
I might have confused you with someone else then, but your position is still in direct conflict with the law. Just think about all the hurdles the prosecution would have here.
- They'd have to explain why the fact that OCSO had investigated Casey's claims and concluded that the "nanny" was not involved and that Casey was lying should now be ignored.
- They'd have to explain why someone would risk losing a first degree murder case rather than losing a felony case that at best might get her 15 years.
- They'd have to explain how it was logical to charge Casey for LYING to the police and then turn around and use those LIES against her as if they were true on another charge.
The logic fails on so many fronts it's almost funny.
I might have confused you with someone else then, but your position is still in direct conflict with the law. Just think about all the hurdles the prosecution would have here.
- They'd have to explain why the fact that OCSO had investigated Casey's claims and concluded that the "nanny" was not involved and that Casey was lying should now be ignored.
Casey lied about things other than Zanny. Her failure to supervise her child--or notify the police of her being missing--while stating that she 'knew in her heart her child was alive' is enough to get a neglect conviction.
Quote:
- They'd have to explain why someone would risk losing a first degree murder case rather than losing a felony case that at best might get her 15 years.
Because they (obviously) couldn't win the higher charges. It was a long shot at best from the start. The neglect would have been a slam dunk.
Quote:
- They'd have to explain how it was logical to charge Casey for LYING to the police and then turn around and use those LIES against her as if they were true on another charge.
The logic fails on so many fronts it's almost funny.
For example telling them she worked at Universal when she didn't would have given the prosecution more fuel, because Casey would have no reason to not be supervising her child.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE DROWNED!!! How can you just accept that as a fact? It was presented as an alternative by the defense...
The simple facts of the case, that should have been presented to the jury are:
1. Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee.
2. Caylee is dead.
Simple logic is that Casey was aware of the death, did not report the death, and tried to cover up the death. Therefore, Casey should be held responsible for the death.
ITA! But, somehow, the jury could not follow this logic.
I disagree. Casey made ample statements to the police--which would be admissible in court--that her child was kidnapped. Not reporting your child being kidnapped is most definitely child neglect. Her own words would be used to prove the charges.
Remember juror Ford said it's easier for her to connect the dots to Caylee dying from accidental drowning than from Casey killing her. That means the lies After the supposed drowning couldn't be used to convict of neglect; no neglect if the child is already dead.
If, and it's a big if, enough jurors totally rejected the drowning allegation, maybe they'd have convinced the others to convict of neglect. I think if enough rejected drowning they'd have convicted of child abuse or manslaughter.
Casey lied about things other than Zanny. Her failure to supervise her child--or notify the police of her being missing--while stating that she 'knew in her heart her child was alive' is enough to get a neglect conviction.
The nanny was the big lie and the ones that spurred the charges as like you said, it sent the police on a wild goose chase. The OCSO determined that the nanny was not involved and that the whole kidnapping story was a lie, which we now know for a fact it was. The prosecution could not turn around and do a 180 and try to use her lies against her in another charge that would be predicated on her statements being an admission. It is not legally possible.
Quote:
Because they (obviously) couldn't win the higher charges. It was a long shot at best from the start. The neglect would have been a slam dunk.
Again, not legally possible. The prosecution does not get to use a shotgun approach to charging people...especially when the charges would have been contradictory...in the hopes that they will find something that sticks. They must charge appropriately and had they done what you suggested the judge would have not allowed it.
Even assuming that the judge would have allowed both charges (and he wouldn't) then the prosecution would get absolutely destroyed in court. There is no possible way they could make their argument without looking like idiots and contradicting themselves.
Quote:
For example telling them she worked at Universal when she didn't would have given the prosecution more fuel, because Casey would have no reason to not be supervising her child.
There was conceived benefit to Casey there so it is not relevant.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE DROWNED!!! How can you just accept that as a fact? It was presented as an alternative by the defense...
The simple facts of the case, that should have been presented to the jury are:
1.Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee.
2. Caylee is dead.
Simple logic is that Casey was aware of the death, did not report the death, and tried to cover up the death. Therefore, Casey should be held responsible for the death.
There was no evidence Caylee didn't drown.
Caseys quilty of negligence in reporting, lying and covering up Caylees death. Does not however prove she was responsible for the death or should be held responsible.
3 people were in the Anthony home the day of the disappearence. George, Casey and Caylee. Caylee died and was put into the laundry and trash bags in the homethat day.
Cindy Anthony doesn't remember what day she left the pool ladder down and I don't get the feeling there would have been an admittion if it was the evening before Caylees death.
The prosecution moved forward with a case they couldn't prove. Why is it so difficult to believe the defense? I wouldn't trust George Anthony as far as I could see him.
Caseys quilty of negligence in reporting, lying and covering up Caylees death. Does not however prove she was responsible for the death or should be held responsible.
3 people were in the Anthony home the day of the disappearence. George, Casey and Caylee. Caylee died and was put into the laundry and trash bags in the homethat day.
Cindy Anthony doesn't remember what day she left the pool ladder down and I don't get the feeling there would have been an admittion if it was the evening before Caylees death.
The prosecution moved forward with a case they couldn't prove. Why is it so difficult to believe the defense? I wouldn't trust George Anthony as far as I could see him.
Because Casey's actions after the fact aren't consistent with an accidental drowning. And yes, they matter. I was once on a jury that acquitted a man BECAUSE his actions after the fact were consistent with his version of he story. Hers are not. They are the actions of someone trying to hide something not the actions of a, supposedly, loving mother whose child just "accidentally" drowned. Ever heard the saying "Actions speak louder than words?". Her actions don't fit her words.
I did not believe the "Baez Fiction" that Caylee drowned. If you don't believe that, then you have to look at the prosecution, and even if there was not enough evidence that a reasonable person would be able to make a logical deduction that based on the circumstances of the case, and the people involved, that still leaves the Mother, Casey, as the one who kept telling people her daughter was with a babysitter, which was untrue, why would she continue with that lie? Because she KNEW her child was dead. If the Mother KNEW the child was dead, there is a responsibility to seek medical treatment for a child that you are responsible for, if there is an accident, or any other type of incident. If the person responsible for the child, does not seek any type of treatment, the assumption a reasonable person would make, is that the person responsible was covering something up, hiding the child's body.
I just can't see anyone finding a dead child, and saying, "quick, get a trash bag, let's go throw her away before we get in trouble". A reasonable person, would get medical help to try to revive a child. And have a funeral.
A person covering up a crime, would not want a funeral, and would want to hide evidence. That seems logical to me. And reasonable.
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.
And yes, they matter. I was once on a jury that acquitted a man BECAUSE his actions after the fact were consistent with his version of he story. Hers are not. They are the actions of someone trying to hide something not the actions of a, supposedly, loving mother whose child just "accidentally" drowned. Ever heard the saying "Actions speak louder than words?". Her actions don't fit her words.
