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 defense doesn't have to prove anything and doesn't even have to come up with a theory. It doesn't have to even talk. The prosecutor has to prove that a crime took place and who did it.
NO ONE could determine how the child died so NO ONE can say it was a murder, as a FACT.
Again, FACT, not speculation, is what the jury was told to work with. We don't put the Nancy Grace's of the world on the stand for a reason...she's all speculation, NO FACT.
I wasn't saying that the defense had to prove anything. I was writing in response to a poster that claimed that because Casey Anthony's defense attorney stated a drowning took place, that the statement was the same as if CA herself said so.
The standard is to determine whether a homicide took place. There are many, many, did I say MANY murder trials where a cause of death cannot be determined. A cause of death IS NOT NECESSARY in determining the guilt of a person. Several people have been convicted of murder when there wasn't even a body. The manner of death in the CA case points directly to a murder.
The internet searches, for various ways to kill someone
The chloroform present in CA's trunk
The human decomp in CA's trunk
The strand of Caylee's hair with postmortem banding in CA's trunk
The duct tape on the skull (yes, it was on the skull. the jaw bone would not have been in place if it wasn't)
Casey's lies and avoidance during the 31 days her child was "missing"
Casey was the only one with the motive
All those FACTS point to guilt. There is no evidence, none in any way that point to a drowning. Even if you could believe that a man who was a retired police officer would find his granddaughter floating in his pool, and he didn't perform CPR, or call 911. He instead decided to cover up the accident to make it look like a homicide. The drowning was the only plausible b.s. excuse they could come up with that people MIGHT believe. There is more reasonable doubt in the theory presented by them than by anything presented by the prosecution.
She didn't have to actually hire a baby sitter (just lie about hiring one) and she could party all she wanted (which is, exactly, what she did after Caylee died). Sadly, what Casey gained was the freedom to party...for 30 days...THAT is what her daughter's life was worth. That's really sad. It's really too bad she didn't just leave Caylee with her grandparents and go party.
The problem with that is that there wasn't this massive binge of partying that the prosecution was trying to lead the jury to believe. There was a couple days in the 31 Caylee was missing where Casey was out partying. That might have been a stronger argument had their been proof that Casey was neglectful but as the jurors mentioned, all the evidence and testimony pointed to Casey being a good mom prior to the disappearance.
The problem with that is that there wasn't this massive binge of partying that the prosecution was trying to lead the jury to believe. There was a couple days in the 31 Caylee was missing where Casey was out partying. That might have been a stronger argument had their been proof that Casey was neglectful but as the jurors mentioned, all the evidence and testimony pointed to Casey being a good mom prior to the disappearance.
Susan Smith was considered a good mother by those around her. So was Diane Downs, her ex-husband thought she adored her kids. Many neglectful, abusive parents appear wonderful to others, because they are putting on a show.
That's fairly strong evidence, but not enough to convict.
Not when you have a ignornant jury.
What reason did Casey have to kill her? How would Casey benefit if she died?
So she could do what ever she wanted and party whenever she wanted. Also so she could spend more time with her boyfriend. Caylee also was starting to talk and could tell others what Casey was doing.
Ok then, give us a better one, or better yet give us your explanation of the word "speculate" and we'll see if you really know what you're talking about or if you're just gonna say "you're wrong" to everything.
Not true. It would be much harder, but not impossible.
The sad fact of the matter is that this is true. Cases are tried on evidence and if the evidence is not there than you are unlikely to get convicted. If you have an alternate method, feel free to share it with us.
LOL. So you wanted them to abandon their duty as jurors to spite the defendant. Just further proof that the emotional mob had a score to settle and the integrity of the legal system be damned.
speculate---
To meditate on a subject; reflect.
To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. See Synonyms at think.
To engage in the buying or selling of a commodity with an element of risk on the chance of profit.
[SIZE=-1]VERB:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]tr.[/SIZE]
To assume to be true without conclusive evidence: [SIZE=+0]speculated that high cholesterol was a contributing factor to the patient's health problems.[/SIZE] Don't you get it. Just because Baez said something, that supposedly came from Casey, doesn't mean the jury isn't 'speculating' as to its truth. Maybe Baez isn't speculating, but the jury is.
The problem with that is that there wasn't this massive binge of partying that the prosecution was trying to lead the jury to believe. There was a couple days in the 31 Caylee was missing where Casey was out partying. That might have been a stronger argument had their been proof that Casey was neglectful but as the jurors mentioned, all the evidence and testimony pointed to Casey being a good mom prior to the disappearance.
Regardless, mourning mothers who just lost their toddlers to a tragic accident aren't lying about it or partying.
Casey lied to her mother about hiring a nanny. With Caylee out of the way, there was no need to pay a nanny and she could come and go as she pleased. Casey is a liar. It is possible she was lying when she played the part of the good mother. She seems to care more about appearances than reality.
The standard is to determine whether a homicide took place. There are many, many, did I say MANY murder trials where a cause of death cannot be determined. A cause of death IS NOT NECESSARY in determining the guilt of a person. Several people have been convicted of murder when there wasn't even a body. The manner of death in the CA case points directly to a murder.
The internet searches, for various ways to kill someone
The chloroform present in CA's trunk
The human decomp in CA's trunk
The strand of Caylee's hair with postmortem banding in CA's trunk
The duct tape on the skull (yes, it was on the skull. the jaw bone would not have been in place if it wasn't)
Casey's lies and avoidance during the 31 days her child was "missing"
Casey was the only one with the motive
Alot of your "facts" have been debunked or disputed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephM
Susan Smith was considered a good mother by those around her. So was Diane Downs, her ex-husband thought she adored her kids. Many neglectful, abusive parents appear wonderful to others, because they are putting on a show.
Yes, but there was actually evidence in those cases to tie them to the murders and in Smith's case, I believe she actually confessed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984
So she could do what ever she wanted and party whenever she wanted. Also so she could spend more time with her boyfriend. Caylee also was starting to talk and could tell others what Casey was doing.
You could apply that to every parent in America if you wanted to. That's hardly credible motive without something to substantiate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Don't you get it. Just because Baez said something, that supposedly came from Casey, doesn't mean the jury isn't 'speculating' as to its truth. Maybe Baez isn't speculating, but the jury is.
So we're in agreement that the defense's statement that Caylee drowned isn't speculation. Ok, that's good because I was seriously starting to wonder there.
As for the jury, if you want to apply the word that loosely, everything they do is speculation. That's a major stretch, but not without some merit.
Alot of your "facts" have been debunked or disputed.
By whom, and which parts?
Disputed does not mean they are not fact. Just because the defense can dig up an expert who disputes the scientific findings does not mean they are no longer valid. The defense's expert witnesses get paid for their testimony you know.
[/quote]Yes, but there was actually evidence in those cases to tie them to the murders and in Smith's case, I believe she actually confessed. [/quote]
OMG, so definitely don't get the point I was trying to make. Also, I think the point I was making would be obvious to someone with even the bare minimum of reading comprehension. I was attempting to point out to you that just because others viewed her as a good mother, it doesn't make her incapable of murdering her child.
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.
Also, I think the point I was making would be obvious to someone with even the bare minimum of reading comprehension. I was attempting to point out to you that just because others viewed her as a good mother, it doesn't make her incapable of murdering her child.