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

[heidisams]

I remember so clearly when FCA looked straight into the face of the detective she was with and said "just curious, but why didn't you issue an Amber Alert?", and when she walked around in a "find Caylee" shirt, and when she told her mom that Caylee would be home by her Birthday, and when she said she could help find Caylee if she was out of jail and when Jose asked the judge to let her out of jail so he (he alone) could accompany her while she was "finding" Caylee. and when she told her dad not to trust Jesse because he may be involved and the detailed description of the Nanny who took Caylee. I could go on and on and on about the actions of a "mother" who reacted to the drowning of her little innocent girl. I really despise her and those that enable her evil behavior.

BBM

I still wonder what would've happened had the judge allowed them to go on that search. Whatever it was they needed to do, was no good. ... I don't know exactly when jbaez was filled in on Caylee's ultimate fate and condition, but I know he at least knew by then... It's shocking how far this man was willing to go to defend this girl. He certainly knew she wasn't innocent.... Innocent people don't need to search for a "missing" child under the cover of darkness, who they later admitted knew was never even missing... Unless, of course, they need to get to a crime scene and tamper with the evidence, that points directly at the defendant...or frame an innocent person... Jesse G comes to mind... Jbaez is just as sick as fca, and in many ways, he's just as dangerous. IMO...

All jmo.

 

[Nore]

Hi , don't know if all saw this. I'm praying for Kronk!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIY1NmUU5jNXBiWGs/view?pref=2&pli=1

 

[jkly]

I think Kronk has a chance of winning this. He really got dragged through the mud while the defense attempted to create "reasonable doubt." In fact, the defense knowingly slandered him on national tv and in a non courtroom setting by stating not that he "hid the body", but that he should be "considered a suspect in Caylee's death." Funny that, considering Baez claims he knew it was an accidental drowning since early 2009.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/0...ader-should-be-suspect-in-daughter-death.html

I never thought Zenaida had much of a chance.

My disgust for that repulsive, lazy jury that acquitted her still hasn't gone away. All they had to do was review the evidence to figure out that Casey was, yet again, full of crap.

 

[jkly]

He certainly knew she wasn't innocent.... Innocent people don't need to search for a "missing" child under the cover of darkness, who they later admitted knew was never even missing... Unless, of course, they need to get to a crime scene and tamper with the evidence, that points directly at the defendant...or frame an innocent person... Jesse G comes to mind... Jbaez is just as sick as fca, and in many ways, he's just as dangerous

You know what, the police should have said yes and then tailed them. I wonder if they would have been led straight to the body. Those two are nowhere near as smart as they think they are.

 

[atthelake]

I will NEVER understand how any jury could not find her guilty for child neglect at the minimum. There was solid evidence that she knew her child was missing yet waited around a month to report it???? There is no reasonable doubt there. That is child neglect. But somehow Casey was never found guilty for that or face punishment for that.

Exactly. And why that report saying she was responsible by the state folks wasn't released until after she was acquitted, and wasn't brought into the trial,I will never understand.

 

[coco puff]

BBM

I still wonder what would've happened had the judge allowed them to go on that search. Whatever it was they needed to do, was no good. ... I don't know exactly when jbaez was filled in on Caylee's ultimate fate and condition, but I know he at least knew by then... It's shocking how far this man was willing to go to defend this girl. He certainly knew she wasn't innocent.... Innocent people don't need to search for a "missing" child under the cover of darkness, who they later admitted knew was never even missing... Unless, of course, they need to get to a crime scene and tamper with the evidence, that points directly at the defendant...or frame an innocent person... Jesse G comes to mind... Jbaez is just as sick as fca, and in many ways, he's just as dangerous. IMO...

All jmo.

There truly is something wrong with our legal system when the prosecution can not ask these questions in court:

Why did you want to go search for Caylee when you knew she was dead?
Why did you implicate Roy Kronk, when you thought she drowned in the backyard pool?
Why did your co counsel say that "someone ELSE murdered that child" (LBK)
Why did you spend so much time looking for the Nanny if you knew that there was no Nanny.
Why did you say that there was Photos of Caylee with STRANGERS that you would release soon, when there was none?

such a freak show, that continue to be supported by freaks!

 

[jkly]

There truly is something wrong with our legal system when the prosecution can not ask these questions in court:

You know that really bugged me. I thought the prosecution put on a very straightforward case. They didn't go into the weeds with Baez, they focused on the evidence and where it led. All the evidence they presented pointed straight to Casey. IMO, they proved everything they alleged in their opening statement, which is more than could be said about Baez.

They didn't really attack Casey for her sex life (the defense called her on her promiscuity more than the state did) , attack her for her social life, they didn't go after her parents. They just presented the evidence and a clear chronology of her behavior that indicated that she had Caylee's body in her trunk, that she disposed of it, that she did so all on her own, that she showed no concern for her child and that Casey was avoiding her family and lying to anyone who asked about Caylee.

Unfortunately, the jury didn't care about the evidence. They wanted a sordid soap opera story like the bull that came out of Baez's mouth. They weren't interested in proving or disproving it. They didn't look at the evidence. They went by the fact that they thought George looked suspicious and Casey appeared sincere.

That's why I get so irritated whenever I hear about one of them claiming "they had to follow the law" (they didn't follow the law) and that they "couldn't rule on emotion" (they did rule on emotion.)

If in spite of all the forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence presented, they dismissed it all because she "seemed like a good mother," they ruled on emotion.

I still can't believe they even considered that heap of crap the defense presented, much less used it in their deliberations. The defense even accused a complete stranger of not only moving the body, but keeping it in his house for months and failed to prove even one aspect of that ridiculous allegation. That made more sense to them than Casey just lying again? Words fail me.

 

[coco puff]

To add the incredulous farce, you have new posters pop up what a "gee whiz, was watching the kids during the trial and at the beginning, I thought she was guilty but I think Baez did so well presenting his case that I can't blame the jury for voting not guilty cause I would have as well. What a crock of bull!! No one does that 5 years after a trial unless they have an ulterior motive.

 

[Hez]

To add the incredulous farce, you have new posters pop up what a "gee whiz, was watching the kids during the trial and at the beginning, I thought she was guilty but I think Baez did so well presenting his case that I can't blame the jury for voting not guilty cause I would have as well. What a crock of bull!! No one does that 5 years after a trial unless they have an ulterior motive.

Yeah, there were a lot of armchair quarterbacks that came out after the fact to say stuff like that.

 

[KKazoo87]

You know that really bugged me. I thought the prosecution put on a very straightforward case. They didn't go into the weeds with Baez, they focused on the evidence and where it led. All the evidence they presented pointed straight to Casey. IMO, they proved everything they alleged in their opening statement, which is more than could be said about Baez.

They didn't really attack Casey for her sex life (the defense called her on her promiscuity more than the state did) , attack her for her social life, they didn't go after her parents. They just presented the evidence and a clear chronology of her behavior that indicated that she had Caylee's body in her trunk, that she disposed of it, that she did so all on her own, that she showed no concern for her child and that Casey was avoiding her family and lying to anyone who asked about Caylee.

Unfortunately, the jury didn't care about the evidence. They wanted a sordid soap opera story like the bull that came out of Baez's mouth. They weren't interested in proving or disproving it. They didn't look at the evidence. They went by the fact that they thought George looked suspicious and Casey appeared sincere.

That's why I get so irritated whenever I hear about one of them claiming "they had to follow the law" (they didn't follow the law) and that they "couldn't rule on emotion" (they did rule on emotion.)

If in spite of all the forensic evidence and circumstantial evidence presented, they dismissed it all because she "seemed like a good mother," they ruled on emotion.

I still can't believe they even considered that heap of crap the defense presented, much less used it in their deliberations. The defense even accused a complete stranger of not only moving the body, but keeping it in his house for months and failed to prove even one aspect of that ridiculous allegation. That made more sense to them than Casey just lying again? Words fail me.

BBM. This. Years after the verdict, still this.

 

[LillyP]

That is why some posters pop up out of nowhere and start defending her "innocence".

Just curious, because I have not really been following much of this on here or elsewhere after it all came to an end so I don't know. But how do the "supporters" of hers defend her against having a missing 2 year old daughter yet not even reporting her missing for a month?
I can't see what type of defense could ever be used for that.

I forgot what all of her charges were so I just checked and I see she wasn't ever charged with child neglect. But she was charged with Aggravated Child Abuse. Which by definition includes "An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child"

I don't get what there is to defend Casey on for that or how anyone could have any reasonable doubt for that.
Her 2 year old daughter "went missing" and she didn't report it for a month. I would think that yes that absolutely qualifies for an intentional act that could be expected to cause physical or mental injury to a child. She intentionally did not report her 2 year old missing for a month!

I really want to know how on earth she got off not guilty on that particular charge. I'm not saying she shouldn't have been found guilty for more...but the rest is much more complicated. To me this is cut and dry - a 2 year old goes missing and the mom doesn't report that to anyone for a month? Where is the reasonable doubt on that? What do the supporters say about that?

 

[peedoffinny]

I believe she was sad. I think she was sorry her daughter was gone. I still don't think she murdered her with malice. I think it was most likely she was responsible for death due to neglect or accident. I still think the jury got it right. I think that the prosecution screwed this case up by charging too much and acting like it was a slam dunk. Same with OJ.

I don't think she was too sad.

 

[Cherry]

casey A may think she "got off" but cindy and george are another matter. on the day the news broke i was outside on my hammock w laptop and i had an allergic reaction so had to lie still. so i read. i read what neighbors wrote online on live feeds about the two weeks before fathers day, and the party and the drinking and that cindy had been on pain pills for a neck injury, and i still think that all anthonys hindered this investigation to protect cindys nursing license. i think the DA now should go back and look at charging cindy A w the murder of caylee because i think she possibly got into her meds, i also think GA helped bury her possibly w/o caseys knowledge. she insisted she didnt know where she was because GA did the digging. they both covered up BIG TIME regarding the impound notice on front door claiming they never saw it. they the parents were raising this child not casey anthony. i think the date time stamp on the video was altered. period. thats my take....hope the DA grows a pair and requests online transcripts from wesh and wftv from that day...as well as possibly charging her parents w involuntry murder. reopen the case...and dont parse down ever again your direct ecidence, so much nvr made it into the courtroom let alone the jury. cindy and george are Not off the hook in any way shape or form. immho

 

[LillyP]

I still think the jury got it right.

How did the jury get it right when they found her not guilty of the child neglect or more formally Aggravated Child Abuse charge?

Can you please elaborate on how a mother is not guilty at all of that when her 2 year old child goes missing and she doesn't report that to anyone for an entire month?

 

[jkly]

But how do the "supporters" of hers defend her against having a missing 2 year old daughter yet not even reporting her missing for a month?

Her "supporters" blame everything on George. Against all logic.

 

[jkly]

i think the DA now should go back and look at charging cindy A w the murder of caylee because i think she possibly got into her meds, i also think GA helped bury her possibly w/o caseys knowledge.

Okay then, why was Casey driving around in the car that had evidence of a dead body in it and making excuses for the smell?

If this is what happened, why did Cindy wait a month to call the police and why didn't Casey ever call the police if she had no idea this had occurred?

BTW, Caylee was not buried at all. She triple bagged and dumped, coincidentally in Casey's old pet cemetary by a lazy, selfish person who I doubt is named George.

i think the DA now should go back and look at charging cindy A w the murder of caylee because i think she possibly got into her meds,

Right, the registered nurse (after thoroughly toddler-proofing her house as she testified to) just left her pain meds lying about. Caylee popped the childproof cap and dug in because she thought they looked like candy and didn't immediately spit it out the minute she tasted it.

There's no evidence of that. And once again, why didn't Casey call 911?

she insisted she didnt know where she was because GA did the digging. they both covered up BIG TIME regarding the impound notice on front door claiming they never saw it.

Or they usually enter the house through the garage and not the front door the way they said.

Why is them not noticing a tow notice more suspicious than Casey lying about Caylee's whereabouts for a month and abandoning her decomp smelling car until it got towed in the first place?

they the parents were raising this child not casey anthony.

They were paying for everything, but Casey was the one with custody.

i think the date time stamp on the video was altered. period. thats my take.....

What video?

hope the DA grows a pair and requests online transcripts from wesh and wftv from that day...as well as possibly charging her parents w involuntry murder.

What do you mean? If you're talking about discovery, the DA already saw it. If you're talking about a bunch of hearsay comments on WESH news articles, the DA would become a laughingstock if he tried to use that as evidence to charge someone with a crime.

as well as possibly charging her parents w involuntry murder. reopen the case..

:banghead:

 

[Frigga]

The more we've learned about what a sociopath Jose Baez is- with absolutely no scruples, morals or concern for the truth or the law I'd bet my house that he found a way to bribe that young, male "foreman". Matter of fact, I'd stake my life on it. Once he had him, everyone of those gullible, simple minded jurors fell in line.

 

[jkly]

The more we've learned about what a sociopath Jose Baez is- with absolutely no scruples, morals or concern for the truth or the law I'd bet my house that he found a way to bribe that young, male "foreman". Matter of fact, I'd stake my life on it. Once he had him, everyone of those gullible, simple minded jurors fell in line.

I agree that he did something.

DC had this to say about Baez's nefarious activities:

Baez then devised a plan to discredit George and get rid of Mark. He used the blogs to knowingly spread false and outrageous allegations that George had molested Casey and either George or Lee could be the father of Caylee.

On Monday September 15, 2008, Laura Buchanan who was one of Baez's bloggers and tools of deception, emailed Mark about custody and disturbing things.

He claimed Buchanan emailed this to Nejame and continued to email him under the guise of supporting Cindy and George.

I've heard so many disturbing things like George was molesting Casey when she was younger and starting to molest Caylee... That Caylee could possibly belong to George or Lee?

Allegedly Baez had a network of supporters he got to spy, spread false rumors and do his dirty work all over the internet.

 

[fraudqueen]

I wish I'd been on that jury, they'd still be in the jury room with me. I wouldn't fold.

 

[Hez]

I agree that he did something.

DC had this to say about Baez's nefarious activities:



He claimed Buchanan emailed this to Nejame and continued to email him under the guise of supporting Cindy and George.



Allegedly Baez had a network of supporters he got to spy, spread false rumors and do his dirty work all over the internet.

Yes and some were (allegedly) members of this forum too, until they would inevitably get themselves banned with their mental gymnastics and circular logic.