Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why does TMZ think anyone cares?
Hi All,
I am wondering if any of you have read the book "Inside the Mind of Casey Anthony" by Keith Ablow, and if so, what you thought of it?
I read it and did find it interesting but I couldn't get over the fact that the author blamed Cindy Anthony for not only Caylee's death, but also the dysfunctionality of the entire family.
Sane or not, I hope he's sterile. :silenced:and Fl is not in "The Thirty Mile Zone" But I did read the article , she found a guy to actually live with her? Is he sane?:moo:
All I would have needed to do is hear Cindy's voice on that 911 tape to know she had NOTHING to do with it or a cover up of it. She may have been an enabler but I honestly don't believe for a second she thought her daughter was capable of cold blooded murder. I think it shocked her as much as it shocked the nation. Party girl, lazy, boy crazy...yeah but murderer? Nope.
Cindy's testimony in court was trying to save her daughter from death penalty. I can't fault her for that. I really can't. I don't think she testified to save her kid from manslaughter...it was the DP driving that train.
George is just George. He came to the conclusion that Casey was capable sooner than Cindy thats for sure. And he was an easy target.
There were a million reasons to hang Casey from the tallest tree. The jury simply did not do the work.
In this case I think the jury did the right work. They did their job. There was just enough to convict her on MURDER. And that is where the prosecution screwed up..
The only way she is going to talk ( and don't expect the truth) will be if someone offers $$$. It's almost 5 years now and media don't seem interested enough to (a) risk the wrath of the general public by giving her a voice and (b) willing to pay her for what would certainly be another version of similar lies...
and Fl is not in "The Thirty Mile Zone" But I did read the article , she found a guy to actually live with her? Is he sane?:moo:
Lets hope he locks up all his valuables or he may find they disappear while he is "sleepwalking".....
In this case I think the jury did the right work. They did their job. There was just enough to convict her on MURDER. And that is where the prosecution screwed up..
That's what he did, huh? I doubt I'll ever read it then.
I really don't understand why people are willing to make excuses for Casey when it's obvious that she is at fault for whatever happened to Caylee, she disposed of Caylee's body and then went to extreme and manipulative lengths to cover up.
Casey is, and was, a grown woman. If she didn't like where she was living, all she had to do was get a real job and move out instead of lying and robbing everyone around her blind.
BBM ~ Well, it's not obvious to me. The evidence I saw was all circumstantial and George behaved as if he was hiding something.
You are confusing direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence generally consists of a direct eyewitness to the crime or a confession from the perpetrator. Circumstantial evidence is all other evidence, including forensic evidence associated with the crime. Most cases are successfully prosecuted on circumstantial evidence alone. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly to Casey and no one else.BBM ~ Well, it's not obvious to me. The evidence I saw was all circumstantial and George behaved as if he was hiding something.
And Casey didn't?
The jury was instructed to give circumstantial evidence the same weight as direct evidence. In bare bones cases where the mother has misled and stalled the police (insisting her daughter was alive and trying to get them to search for a fictional nanny in New York and Puerto Rico) to the point that her daughter is finally discovered skeletonized, there isn't a lot of forensic evidence.
If the jury had given the circumstantial evidence any consideration, they would have realized that Casey's story was both impossible and it made no sense. Instead, the jury decided George's behavior (on the stand, not even during the 31 days) mattered and Casey's did not.
***snipped by me***
Baez went to such lengths to paint all the expert testimony about the trunk as junk science. So why would he harp on the George not immediately grabbing the tow notice or immediately calling the police about the smell after opening the trunk and finding nothing there? Why try to convince them that it was just trash?
What's suspicious about George not immediately going to the tow yard to retrieve a car that had nothing to do with Caylee's death? What about Baez's reasoning makes sense?
This is where it gets really interesting:
A) if you decide George not immediately getting the car is suspicious, it means you concede that Caylee's body was in Casey's trunk at one point and Casey was fully aware of that fact because she abandoned her car and was texting people with excuses about the smell in it.
***snipped by me***
Casey's story had holes in it bigger than the grand canyon starting with how Caylee's body got into the woods.
If only the people who bend over backwards to give Casey the benefit of a doubt would do the same for George. There is absolutely nothing that implicates him other than Casey changing her story yet again.
If I were him, I'd be sleeping with one eye open. She's killed once, she'll do it again.
:goodpost::loveyou:
Respectfully snipped, but ALL excellent points jkly...
The jurors just didn't want to do the work, they wanted the prosecution to remove all doubt for them. Without direct evidence pointing right at fca they refused to even look at the circumstantial stuff... When asked why deliberations were so short considering all that evidence, Jennifer Ford admitted that they didn't even look at the evidence because they wanted more, they wanted physical evidence (direct) and cod (not required), they wanted the prosecution to connect the dots for them (pretty sure she said that wasn't their job!), etc. She said if you don't even know how she died how can you say it's murder??? Uhm...you discuss the evidence, you roll up your sleeves, you use your brain, and put 2 & 2 together and see where the evidence takes you... Even today, I still get frustrated with how they reached their verdict, because they didn't have the right to disregard the evidence just because it was circumstantial and they didn't like it.... It wasn't their job to determine what kind of evidence is acceptable to them, the court instructed them on what CE was and how they were to apply it... Would a video of fca killing Caylee have been easier? Yes, of course... CE takes more time, it requires discussions, pouring over the evidence, making inferences, putting it all together, etc, but that's what the jury is expected to do... Deliberate...Like you said in your post, they were supposed to give it the same weight as direct evidence...This jury didn't do that, they did it their way.....
I don't understand how the jury could've so easily given the defense a pass on not explaining how Caylee's body ended up in the woods...In opening jbaez kind of danced around it, he told them them george told fca he'd "take care of it", and that was about it. He didn't provide any evidence during the trial (of anything), he just left the jury hanging with that large elephant in the room... Of course, if one were to connect the dots, you might realize that they had no explanation for it because no one else but fca did it. The circumstances tell us that...
Typically when attys don't deliver on what they say in opening statements jurors hold it against them... If holes are left wide open, they usually want to know why, and will fill it in themselves.... which doesn't always bode well for the defendant... Typically, jurors do their job.... IMO
eta... Here's another good definition of direct evidence, from www.probablecause.org:
Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio and videotapes, and physical evidence of the crime. With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.
All jmo.