4 years later, what do we think of the case / verdict now?

[Sky9333]

See bold. Especially when the mandible was still in place. Without the duct tape holding it together it would not have been. How does anyone not see that logic? The presence of the tape in Caylee's hair and where her face should have been, plus the Mandible being in place proves that it was not a drowning, it was Murder!

I believe the body was moved. I think the tape was put on after death. If I recall there wasn't dna on the duct tape. I need to go back and look.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

See bold. Especially when the mandible was still in place. Without the duct tape holding it together it would not have been. How does anyone not see that logic? The presence of the tape in Caylee's hair and where her face should have been, plus the Mandible being in place proves that it was not a drowning, it was Murder!

It only proves the duct tape was put on while it was intact. It does not prove that it was the method to kill her. The fact that it was perfectly placed suggest that it was put there after death to me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The problem is that the jury decided George was guilty the moment they heard the words "her father's penis in her mouth right before she would catch the bus to school" in Baez's opening statement and they viewed anything he did through that filter.

I'm convinced there's nothing he could have done to convince the jury he wasn't somehow involved.

I don't think you need to place george in the guilt seat to not convict her. For me, It is as easy as the lack of evidence.

 

[heidisams]

I read that one and Baez's book. I never finished Ashton's book. I think there was deep psychological issues in that family.

I would never buy Ablow's book (or jbaez's, for that matter)...I refuse to waste my time or money supporting anyone who would exploit the death of a child for their own financial gain/agenda. Ablow never evaluated fca, he played no role in the trial, and I have no interest in reading, or listening, to anything he has to say... As far as the family having deep psychological issues, the facts are fca, and her defense, tried, and failed, to find a psychologist who would support their theory of PTSD, compartmentalization, or any other psychological issue that would help explain away her behavior and aid them in their defense... Other than the conclusion that she was pure evil, it was a resounding thud and the defense had to remove them from their witness list... I don't know about the rest of the family having any deep psychological issues, they weren't evaluated and they weren't on trial, so we'd only be speculating...

Here's a little refresher of how things went down with Dr. Danziger, who, again, was hired by the defense to evaluate fca:

• During Danziger's deposition with the state, Ashton asked Danziger if he recalled a conversation he had with Burdick at the courthouse, in which he said words to the effect of, "I have no explanation for this other than she's just pure evil."

• Dr. Jeffery Danziger, the psychologist who examined and tested Casey Anthony said that she did NOT exhibit the signs of a molested person, and he was VERY uncomfortable being used by the defense to hint that she was abused by George.

(I'm trying to find a link that works for the article I'm quoting, however, the info is also available in the the thread on fca's psych evals)

--------------------------------------------

These are the facts that we have in evidence, anything else is speculation... Sometimes people kill because they're evil, sometimes that's your explanation...

All jmo.

 

[LinasK]

I believe the body was moved. I think the tape was put on after death. If I recall there wasn't dna on the duct tape. I need to go back and look.

The body was moved- from the backyard to the trunk of Casey's car, where she drove it around until dumping Caylee in the woods!!!
George was not involved or he wouldn't have been so shocked that the car was missing and smelled like a dead body. He tried to get Casey to talk to Leonard Padilla/Tim Miller from Texas Equii Search

 

[jkly]

I don't think you need to place george in the guilt seat to not convict her. For me, It is as easy as the lack of evidence.

You don't have to put George in the guilt seat not to convict her of first degree murder. I agree with that. But the lesser charges? Not so much.

My problem is that to claim he's involved, you would have to believe that an accident took place and he didn't call 911, then he tossed his granddaughter's body in the woods with garbage bags and items from the house and he couldn't even be bothered to dig a grave with her the way he did with the family pets.

As an ex cop, there's no reason he would make an accident look like a murder unless there was evidence of something nefarious he was trying to hide, which was also where the jury ultimately had to go and why they had to speculate and claim his behavior on the stand was suspicious.

The problem with Casey being alone, however, is that she found her daughter had drowned in the pool, was unresponsive and she did not call the paramedics or the police and make any attempt to save her life. Instead for whatever reason, she bagged up her daughter, covered up her death and ultimately threw her in the woods. That's enough to convict her on the lesser charge of manslaughter, which the jury admits that they were 6-6 on.

That is why George had to be there for them not to convict her and George had to be suspicious and Casey had to be a "victim" of big, bad George and so terrorized by George that she would not go to the police. They had to be unsure of who was watching her and unsure of who allowed the accident to occur.

There's a reason that Casey would not even admit to disposing of Caylee's body, which even you agree that she did and the evidence clearly shows that she did.

You do know that Casey didn't want to claim the entire thing was an accident and she wanted to claim it was murder, right? She wanted to say that she thought George drugged her, which was why she "slept in" so late. (Another lie, she was up at 7:00 and on the computer.) She wanted to claim that George did that so he could molest Caylee undisturbed, she wanted to say that his shirt was already wet when he came into her room the first time yelling at her that Caylee was missing. The gist of what she wanted to say was that she believed her father drowned Caylee while he was molesting her in the pool.

It was one of the defense experts who came out with this bit of information. He was so disturbed by it and the fact that testifying to what he felt was a lie might possibly do damage to innocent people. Baez ultimately struck him from the witness list.

She's destroyed her father's reputation forever by her inconsistent and contradictory claims of sexual abuse, none of which were supported by a shred of proof. That's obvious just by reading some of the stuff people have been posting on the forums. What kind of person would go that far to blame someone else after an accident occurs? Try to answer this question. Doing so is not using emotion, it's using plain old common sense.

If she was so grief-stricken and frightened over Caylee's death, why didn't she break down when the police suggested to her that an accident occurred? The police, with all their experience in interrogation, could not break and get the truth from a terrorized abuse victim who somehow was able to spit out lie after lie without blinking? Why was she so disinterested and only interested in ending the interrogation so she could call Tony?

That's a lot of damning behavior that has to be ignored, because it speaks to consciousness of guilt. The jury chose to ignore it, BUT here's where they screwed up. They then focused on George's every action and put George on trial with less than 1% of the evidence they had against Casey, which was hypocritical and just plain stupid.

Thank you for not doing that at least. I do understand what you're saying, but I would have found her guilty regardless. There are too many damning coincidences, too many lies and too many times that I thought her behavior regarding the loss of her child was beyond the pale. Cause of death, which was not required by law, would not be something that would hang me up from finding her guilty of at the very least, felony murder.

 

[LinasK]

I don't remember there ever being a trace of chloroform. I remember the computer searches were debunked about chloroform. Casey had seen it on a meme from myspace and googled what it was.

I truely think George had something to do with it. I think it was an accident.

If it's an accident, you call 911- you DON'T duct tape a child and throw her in the woods!!! Do you seriously believe George drowned her??? Casey acted alone and planned this muder. Caylee was never a wanted child by her, she was an unplanned pregnancy and Casey neglected her as much as possible. Everyone else took care of Caylee. George had no involvement other than spreading lye on the lawn.

 

[jkly]

I believe the body was moved. I think the tape was put on after death. If I recall there wasn't dna on the duct tape. I need to go back and look.

The duct tape was worn and dried out. It was affixed to Caylee's hair mat by a network of fine roots growing through it and her hair meaning that the tape was probably in whatever position it was in for quite awhile.

duct tape: http://truecrimejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/49761076.jpg

duct tape: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2012/02/22/10/67/21249793_2.jpg

duct tape: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm166/crankycrankerson/Caylee Anthony -FL-/Evidence/10909dfd.jpg

The skull was tethered to the ground by a network of vines, indicating that it had not been moved in quite awhile. If you look at the picture, you can see that the investigator can't lift it up all the way and is squatting in sort of an awkward position because of the vines growing through it.

http://truecrimejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/caylee-skull.jpg

another picture of Caylee's skull on the ground with vines growing through it:

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/30010/slide_30010_294036_free.jpg


There wasn't dna anywhere except in Caylee's bones, which were used to identify her. Her body was most likely underwater for months and months. The search records indicate that the area was not searched for that reason. Tim Miller even discussed it. He stated that he called off the searches because "the water was too high and the searchers could be walking all over Caylee's remains and not find them."

 

[deedee21]

Baez hired a woman to help with jury selection. It was her job to spot morons. Someone you can sell a bridge to. I saw her interview. She was very proud of herself. She thought they could get a hung jury at best. She was very pleased at the outcome. Shes a cold and soulless woman.

 

[jkly]

I don't remember there ever being a trace of chloroform. I remember the computer searches were debunked about chloroform. Casey had seen it on a meme from myspace and googled what it was.

I truely think George had something to do with it. I think it was an accident.

Yes, the State debunked the chloroform searches. They debunked Cindy's claims that she had made them, because they pulled up her work records and proved that she was at work, on her computer at work, when they were made.

They also disproved Cindy's claims that work "fudged her hours."

The person who searched for chloroform went way past looking up a meme. They googled not only "chloroform" but "how to make chloroform", "recipe for chloroform', "neck breaking" and "household weapons" around the same period of time. And from the State, we know that person was not Cindy, although she tried to lie about it.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Baez hired a woman to help with jury selection. It was her job to spot morons. Someone you can sell a bridge to. I saw her interview. She was very proud of herself. She thought they could get a hung jury at best. She was very pleased at the outcome. Shes a cold and soulless woman.

Then there was the assist from Judge Perry who allowed the woman who said her religion forbade her from judging anyone, onto a murder trial jury..... When I saw that, I think I posted on here that it's now a foregone conclusion, she is going to walk.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You don't have to put George in the guilt seat not to convict her of first degree murder. I agree with that. But the lesser charges? Not so much.

My problem is that to claim he's involved, you would have to believe that an accident took place and he didn't call 911, then he tossed his granddaughter's body in the woods with garbage bags and items from the house and he couldn't even be bothered to dig a grave with her the way he did with the family pets.

As an ex cop, there's no reason he would make an accident look like a murder unless there was evidence of something nefarious he was trying to hide, which was also where the jury ultimately had to go and why they had to speculate and claim his behavior on the stand was suspicious.

The problem with Casey being alone, however, is that she found her daughter had drowned in the pool, was unresponsive and she did not call the paramedics or the police and make any attempt to save her life. Instead for whatever reason, she bagged up her daughter, covered up her death and ultimately threw her in the woods. That's enough to convict her on the lesser charge of manslaughter, which the jury admits that they were 6-6 on.

That is why George had to be there for them not to convict her and George had to be suspicious and Casey had to be a "victim" of big, bad George and so terrorized by George that she would not go to the police. They had to be unsure of who was watching her and unsure of who allowed the accident to occur.

There's a reason that Casey would not even admit to disposing of Caylee's body, which even you agree that she did and the evidence clearly shows that she did.

You do know that Casey didn't want to claim the entire thing was an accident and she wanted to claim it was murder, right? She wanted to say that she thought George drugged her, which was why she "slept in" so late. (Another lie, she was up at 7:00 and on the computer.) She wanted to claim that George did that so he could molest Caylee undisturbed, she wanted to say that his shirt was already wet when he came into her room the first time yelling at her that Caylee was missing. The gist of what she wanted to say was that she believed her father drowned Caylee while he was molesting her in the pool.

It was one of the defense experts who came out with this bit of information. He was so disturbed by it and the fact that testifying to what he felt was a lie might possibly do damage to innocent people. Baez ultimately struck him from the witness list.

She's destroyed her father's reputation forever by her inconsistent and contradictory claims of sexual abuse, none of which were supported by a shred of proof. That's obvious just by reading some of the stuff people have been posting on the forums. What kind of person would go that far to blame someone else after an accident occurs? Try to answer this question. Doing so is not using emotion, it's using plain old common sense.

If she was so grief-stricken and frightened over Caylee's death, why didn't she break down when the police suggested to her that an accident occurred? The police, with all their experience in interrogation, could not break and get the truth from a terrorized abuse victim who somehow was able to spit out lie after lie without blinking? Why was she so disinterested and only interested in ending the interrogation so she could call Tony?

That's a lot of damning behavior that has to be ignored, because it speaks to consciousness of guilt. The jury chose to ignore it, BUT here's where they screwed up. They then focused on George's every action and put George on trial with less than 1% of the evidence they had against Casey, which was hypocritical and just plain stupid.

Thank you for not doing that at least. I do understand what you're saying, but I would have found her guilty regardless. There are too many damning coincidences, too many lies and too many times that I thought her behavior regarding the loss of her child was beyond the pale. Cause of death, which was not required by law, would not be something that would hang me up from finding her guilty of at the very least, felony murder.

I think if there was 2nd degree murder or even voluntary manslaughter she would be in prison. I think they made it too hard for the jury to give her 1st.

 

[jkly]

I think if there was 2nd degree murder or even voluntary manslaughter she would be in prison. I think they made it too hard for the jury to give her 1st.

Second degree murder was an option. They found her not guilty of it and then they found her not guilty of manslaughter because "they couldn't decide who Caylee's caretaker was when the drowning occurred."

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Second degree murder was an option. They found her not guilty of it and then they found her not guilty of manslaughter because "they couldn't decide who Caylee's caretaker was when the drowning occurred."

Okay.. So let me rephrase... I know they had other options LEGALLY but not from the prosecution. If they had tried this as a manslaughter trial, or second degree they would have had her, But they didn't. They went way over the mark with premeditated murder and that is where I think the Jury lost it. They could not find her guilty that way. They fought the case for murder 1.

 

[zippitydoda]

I think if there was 2nd degree murder or even voluntary manslaughter she would be in prison. I think they made it too hard for the jury to give her 1st.

If you would like to become more familiar with this case, here is a link on all charges her jury had instructions on for consideration; http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

Casey Marie Anthony is accused of Murder in the First Degree, Aggravated

Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, and four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer.

Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree,

Manslaughter and Third Degree Felony Murder, all of which are unlawful.

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree or Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murder whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

 

[jkly]

Okay.. So let me rephrase... I know they had other options LEGALLY but not from the prosecution. If they had tried this as a manslaughter trial, or second degree they would have had her, But they didn't. They went way over the mark with premeditated murder and that is where I think the Jury lost it. They could not find her guilty that way. They fought the case for murder 1.

The charges were clearly explained in the jury forms and the jury had to go over them and tick no after reading all of the requirements to find her guilty of the charges. I don't find it reasonable that she wasn't punished at all, just because the State made the highest charge available possible.

The State didn't throw Caylee in the woods, yet Caylee ended up decomposing in the woods somehow. This wasn't supposed to be about the State either way, or about the lawyers. It was the fact that a two year old child died of something other than natural causes and whether it was an accident or not, she was dumped in the woods in garbage bags and her mother, who lied and covered it up, was driving around in and then subsequently abandoned a car that bore significant evidence of her daughter's dead body having been in the trunk of it.

I do see what you're saying, but if your point is that the jury let her off completely without convicting her of any of the lesser offenses (that even you feel she deserved) because they thought the State charged her too severely or was somehow "picking on her", they ruled based on emotion and thus incorrectly.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Baez hired a woman to help with jury selection. It was her job to spot morons. Someone you can sell a bridge to. I saw her interview. She was very proud of herself. She thought they could get a hung jury at best. She was very pleased at the outcome. Shes a cold and soulless woman.

Every defense attorney and prosecutor has people to help them pick a jury to help their side win.

 

[Pink Panther]

Even the guilty go free sometimes. Mostly because of laws that are in place to protect the innocent from being unduly prosecuted. Sometimes, one of them slips through the cracks. That's what happened here. Thanks to a judge that speeded through a jury selection process and forgot to check off the IQ box that isn't there for jury selection.

 

[coco puff]

I believe the body was moved. I think the tape was put on after death. If I recall there wasn't dna on the duct tape. I need to go back and look.

You don't duct tape a drowned child.

 

[coco puff]

It only proves the duct tape was put on while it was intact. It does not prove that it was the method to kill her. The fact that it was perfectly placed suggest that it was put there after death to me.

As the medical examiner said, duct tape and accidental deaths do not together.