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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is one thing George is guilty of, and that's spreading lye on the lawn to hide the scent of Caylee's decomposing body when Casey set her body down there. Other than that, it's a bunch of hogwash (nicest term I can use). Even if you believed the accidental drowning theory, for which there is zero proof, (A picture of Caylee posing pretending to open the handle is no proof!) how does one explain the duct tape found over her nose and mouth??? There is no explanation for that besides murder!!! Caylee didn't duct tape herself!

The point is that we don't know when it was put there. It could have been put there after death. It could have been there to make it look like a kidnapping because Casey was afraid of what had happened to Caylee but that does not prove she killed her.

 

[jkly]

Amen.
What I saw was two grandparents who were grieving, heartbroken, and desperate to find their precious grandchild.... and you can't fake genuine grief. Casey on the other hand- well we all saw how she acted.

From the Amanda Knox case, I learned the Italians believe in this thing called "dietrologia." Basically, what it means is that "the easiest and most obvious solution is never the truth."

I think the jurors were also believers in that doctrine. They were presented with two scenarios.

Scenario A: Casey does something nefarious, Caylee dies, Casey covers up her death and stalls by lying to her parents and claiming that she's in Jacksonville and a million other places and Caylee is fine. Casey takes steps to dispose of Caylee's body. Her parents pick up the death mobile, realize something is very wrong and track down their liar daughter only to find out their granddaughter has been "missing for a month." All the evidence points to Casey. No evidence anyone else is involved.

Scenario B: Caylee drowns in the pool. George is there because due to the wide time frame offered by the defense during which the alleged drowning took place there is no evidence that he was not. (THis is the same sort of reasoning the Italians used to put Amanda Knox in the house the night Meredith Kercher was murdered despite there being no forensic evidence of her presence in the room where Meredith was stabbed to death where there is blood and DNA everywhere.)

George possibly murdered Caylee and either way, Casey is just an accomplice, despite the fact that she was driving around in the car with all the evidence of a dead body in it and there is no evidence tying George to the car during the thirty one days. (The Italians used the same reasoning with Rudy Guede being just an accomplice, the guy whose dna was found all over Meredith's room. He left a bloody handprint and bloody footprints behind, and his dna was found inside the victim. He had the same sort of cuts on his hands that Jodi Arias had on her hands, and he had been caught breaking and entering in other houses and threatened one of the home owners with a knife.

The Italians claimed that Amanda faked the break in, somehow knowing Rudy's MO, throwing a rock through a window and then climbing through a second story window and then charged her with the theft of Meredith's money, despite the fact that Rudy had been desperately trying to borrow money to pay his rent earlier that day and later that night he showed up at a club and bought his friends a round of drinks.

There was also no evidence that Amanda was in contact with him or even knew him beyond being introduced to him once. Raffaele, Amanda's boyfriend, had never met him.)

And then continuing scenario B with Casey, a complete stranger picked up Caylee's remains kept them for a month or two and then replanted them back in the woods, managing to somehow emulate months of plant growth with a vague motive regarding a reward and again, no real evidence that this took place.

And Scenario B, was the solution the jurors bought. Somehow that was easier to get to than Casey Marie Anthony did something to her daughter, covered it up and lied and stalled and then lied some more.

 

[jkly]

The point is that we don't know when it was put there. It could have been put there after death. It could have been there to make it look like a kidnapping because Casey was afraid of what had happened to Caylee but that does not prove she killed her.

The duct tape, if you look at the pictures, was pretty worn and there were fine roots growing through it. So it's very likely it was put there when Caylee was put there.

Just one question, if you found the remains of a child, triple bagged in the woods, with duct tape in the vicinity of her face, would your gut reaction be "this must have been a horrible accident that someone tried to cover up and there's no evidence that the person who dumped her there is culpable in any way."?

Casey can say anything after the fact. Especially with no official COD. Chances are, though, from what we know, that anything Casey says is not true.

I just don't understand how Casey getting up there and lying and endlessly manipulating everyone around her somehow makes that conclusion more believable. From the way she was screaming at her parents and controlling them and doing everything she could to deflect suspicion elsewhere, she was no shrinking violet. I just can't see her sitting in jail with first degree murder charges hanging over her head unless she was using that time to figure out how to get out of them.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The duct tape, if you look at the pictures, was pretty worn and there were fine roots growing through it. So it's very likely it was put there when Caylee was put there.

Just one question, if you found the remains of a child, triple bagged in the woods, with duct tape in the vicinity of her face, would your gut reaction be "this must have been a horrible accident that someone tried to cover up?"

I just don't understand how Casey getting up there and lying and endlessly manipulating everyone around her somehow makes that conclusion more believable. From the way she was screaming at her parents and controlling them and doing everything she could to deflect suspicion elsewhere, she was no shrinking violet. I just can't see her sitting in jail with first degree murder charges hanging over her head unless she was using that time to figure out how to get out of them.

Just because she is a liar does not make her a murderer.. Do I think she was responsible.. Yes, Could I prove it beyond reasonable doubt? No.

Like I said, had they gone for second degree, I think she would be in jail now.. But first degree with death penalty??? There was just not enough proof to get them there.

I think this jury wanted to find her guilty more than anything.. but in the end, They stuck to what they thought the evidence supported..

 

[jkly]

Just because she is a liar does not make her a murderer.. Do I think she was responsible.. Yes, Could I prove it beyond reasonable doubt? No.

Like I said, had they gone for second degree, I think she would be in jail now.. But first degree with death penalty??? There was just not enough proof to get them there.

I think this jury wanted to find her guilty more than anything.. but in the end, They stuck to what they thought the evidence supported..

I disagree. I don't think they wanted to find her guilty at all.

Turning on George, when there is no evidence against him except Baez's postulating, is looking for a reason not to find her guilty. The simple fact is that they knew they could not find Casey not guilty without blaming someone else to a certain extent. When an accident has truly taken place, that is not necessary. No one is to blame for an accident and no one is a victim, besides the person who was in the accident, when an accident occurs.

And this is JMO, but I think George, the ex police officer would have understood that better than anyone, which is why he would have called 911 and not have dumped his granddaughter in the woods behind his house. That's why you can't go the "accident route" without saying "I think it was an accident but-" and then you have to start making unfounded speculations about George the way the jury ultimately did. So the jury ultimately wasn't saying it was an accident after all, because they knew that didn't make sense. It was an accident, but George had to be suspicious enough, despite the lack of evidence for them to find the reasonable doubt to let her off.

They were saying they "think" George did something nefarious, which was putting him on trial with no evidence for what Casey was charged with and ignoring all the evidence against her. They basically admitted that they believed she was a victim of her mean, perverted old abuser father (because the Baez authored incest *advertiser censored* opening statement claimed he was a mean old, perverted abuser) and therefore they just couldn't hold her responsible for anything that happened to her daughter who was admittedly under her charge.

Saying someone "seems like a good mother" despite evidence to the contrary (she didn't report her daughter missing, she was lying about having a job and leaving her daughter with her parents, one of whom she claims is a molester, whenever she wanted to go party) is looking for a reason not to find her guilty.

Saying her utter lack of concern for her daughter is evidence that she was grieving in an ugly way is making excuses for her because they don't want to find her guilty.

Saying her "body language seemed sincere" when she was driving around with evidence of her daughter's body in the trunk of her car and lying and pointing the finger at anyone and everyone she could to escape even a modicum of blame for what happened, is looking for a reason not to find her guilty.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I disagree. I don't think they wanted to find her guilty at all.

Turning on George, when there is no evidence against him except Baez's postulating, is looking for a reason not to find her guilty.

Saying someone "seems like a good mother" despite evidence to the contrary (she didn't report her daughter missing, she was lying about having a job and leaving her daughter with her parents, one of whom she claims is a molester, whenever she wanted to go party) is looking for a reason not to find her guilty.

Saying her utter lack of concern for her daughter is evidence that she was grieving in an ugly way is making excuses for her because they don't want to find her guilty.

Saying her "body language seemed sincere" when she was driving around with evidence of her daughter's body in the trunk of her car and lying and pointing the finger at anyone and everyone she could to escape even a modicum of blame for what happened, is looking for a reason not to find her guilty.

George was used as a scapegoat for sure but that has nothing to do with whether she killed someone or not.

All your arguments are emotional and not evidentiary.

I get it. I get the passion behind people wanting her locked up. I understand people don't like her and want her to rot. I think she was a crappy mother. But I also can't prove she murdered Caylee. At best I get neglect out of the evidence. The prosecution only has themselves to blame.

 

[jkly]

George was used as a scapegoat for sure but that has nothing to do with whether she killed someone or not.

All your arguments are emotional and not evidentiary.

I get it. I get the passion behind people wanting her locked up. I understand people don't like her and want her to rot. I think she was a crappy mother. But I also can't prove she murdered Caylee. At best I get neglect out of the evidence. The prosecution only has themselves to blame.

Okay, lets review the evidence.

1) Caylee was found in the woods triple bagged and skeletonized. BTW, you never answered my original question about what your gut reaction would be if you stumbled on such a discovery. Would it be, gee the child who was dumped here must have suffered a horrible accident and the people who dumped her there couldn't possibly be to blame in any way for what happened to her?

2) Casey lied. Her lies by themselves do not make her guilty. But-

a) Fact: She was pointing the finger at innocent people who we now know had nothing to do with Caylee's death.
b) Fact: She was insisting Caylee was alive. Fact: She was not.
c) She was attacking the police investigation into her daughter's appearance, trying to cast blame on them.

Emotion is making excuses for any of these facts. Do you see what I'm saying?

Fact: Casey's car smelled of death and five different people identified the smell as such along with two cadaver dogs. A death band was found in the trunk of her car. Casey was making excuses for the smell. Casey ultimately dumped her car after complaining about the smell.

Emotion: Well, just because she was driving around with her daughter's body in the trunk of her car doesn't mean she killed her. Saying that doesn't detract from the evidence pointing towards Casey knowingly driving around in a car that smelled of death and ultimately dumping it. Saying that is making excuses for Casey, the same way saying "oh well, maybe she was scared and that's why she was driving around with her daughter's body in the trunk of her car" is making excuses for Casey not based on evidence, but based on speculation.

You have no evidence that Casey was scared. Her actions, in fact, indicate that she was not scared. Either way, she was still driving around with her daughter's body in the trunk of her car, whether she was scared, and whether she murdered her or not.

That points towards Casey, not George.

FACT: Casey claimed George disposed of the body, not her.

FACT: Casey was covering up Caylee's death. There is no evidence that George was covering up Caylee's death.

FACT: There is zero evidence that Casey is a victim of incest deserving of leniency. No psychiatrists have attested to Casey suffering from any mental illness. Caylee was under her charge and she failed to care for her and protect her. She then didn't report her death and dumped her daughter's body in the woods for the animals to chew on and went and by all appearances, had the time of her life.

When she was finally found out, she couldn't even be bothered to explain this was a horrible accident, take the police back to her old pet cemetary and give her daughter a proper burial. She obstructed the investigation into her daughters death, FACT and made it harder for them to find her and...

FACT, that contributed significantly to the reason Caylee Marie was found six months later and a cause of death could not be determined.

The jury ignored that great gaping hole in logic.

They should have had no problem coming to the conclusion that Casey is an adult and that she was to blame for Caylee's death. They didn't have to convict her of first degree. They had a number of lesser charges, including, as you stated above "Second Degree Murder" and "Manslaughter."

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't have evidence she was scared but the possibility is there. None of us know what happened the day that Caylee died. None.. And that is where the problem lies.
The tape does not prove whether it was there before life or death. We can assume but it can be said it was cause of death because they could not pin point one.

I believe it was negligent homicide. That is it. I don't believe it was an intentional murder.. Just an intentional cover up after the fact.

Just because Casey claims something I don't believe it. I think that Casey disposed of Caylee. I always have. If they could prove to me that she intentionally killed her that would be one thing but they didn't.

They put all their eggs in one basket and gambled too big.

Had they had other choices for the jury this would have ended differently.

I believe that Casey loved Caylee but I have seen lots of parents who love their children do stupid things and hurt their kids.

There was not proof that Casey murdered her. And that was the problem. Not with the logic, But with the case.

 

[jkly]

I don't have evidence she was scared but the possibility is there. None of us know what happened the day that Caylee died. None.. And that is where the problem lies.
The tape does not prove whether it was there before life or death. We can assume but it can be said it was cause of death because they could not pin point one.

I believe it was negligent homicide. That is it. I don't believe it was an intentional murder.. Just an intentional cover up after the fact.

Just because Casey claims something I don't believe it. I think that Casey disposed of Caylee. I always have. If they could prove to me that she intentionally killed her that would be one thing but they didn't.

They put all their eggs in one basket and gambled too big.

Had they had other choices for the jury this would have ended differently.

I believe that Casey loved Caylee but I have seen lots of parents who love their children do stupid things and hurt their kids.

There was not proof that Casey murdered her. And that was the problem. Not with the logic, But with the case.

A lot of the time when a murder occurs, there are no eyewitnesses. So I think the statement that "no one knows what happened the day that Caylee died" is painting with a very broad brush and makes it difficult for anyone to be convicted of murder.

I think I actually addressed most of your other points in my above post. Other than that, Good night. It's been nice talking with you. Thank you for remaining so polite and civilized.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No problem! I don't have an emotional component to these cases.. I think there are ways they could have convicted her. But I think the prosecution went too hard for things they could not prove. It is sad. I believe she was responsible, just not sure how.

Have a good one!!!

 

[jkly]

There is one thing George is guilty of, and that's spreading lye on the lawn to hide the scent of Caylee's decomposing body when Casey set her body down there. Other than that, it's a bunch of hogwash (nicest term I can use). Even if you believed the accidental drowning theory, for which there is zero proof, (A picture of Caylee posing pretending to open the handle is no proof!) how does one explain the duct tape found over her nose and mouth??? There is no explanation for that besides murder!!! Caylee didn't duct tape herself!

That always confuses me when people want to discount the duct tape. A criminal defendant can say anything after the fact to try to make themselves look better. Especially when they've had nothing to do but sit on their butt in jail and try to think up ways to absolve themselves of all blame.

If Caylee had been found with trauma to her skull or her bones and the defense had called some quack up to testify that the damage could have been done post mortem in the woods, again, that still wouldn't have been enough evidence to prove murder? So we're back to square one again?

This kind of reasoning puzzles me.

So somehow it's the state's fault for not finding Caylee sooner and daring to bring charges against an, at the very least, negligent pathetic excuse for a mother who most likely dumped her there and then actively obstructed the investigation into her disappearance?

A two year old child is dead.The State wasn't involved with Caylee's death. They didn't dump her in the woods.

 

[Sky9333]

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.

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

 

[jamesup]

I think that the evidence showed chloroform was applied to Caylee by Casey and her boyfriend to put her to sleep so that they could have a good time without interference. Unintentionally, Caylee was killed by the process rather than simply being put to sleep. I don't believe the homicide was intentional. If on the jury, I would have voted for child abuse resulting in death. James

 

[coco puff]

Well that judge is wrong too. There was no evidence about what actually killed Caylee. There was no bullet wound or flesh to prove toxins..

The fact is she could have accidentally drowned. Emotionally I get the wanting to get her.. I feel that she should have been charged with the very least neglect.. but there was nothing to prove how she died. and without that you can not prove murder.. Especially first degree.

The jury was right.

There has been so many people convicted of murder where the body was so badly decomposed that the cause of death could not be determined.

Drowned 2-year-old's do not end up duct taped, in a bag, in the woods PERIOD! It is "beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY doubt. FCA's actions are completely consistent a mother that killed her child and tried to conceal it.

 

[coco puff]

Oh come on, we know George did those. He logged into Casey o'marie's AIM account and what he saw there made him google how to suffocate himself.

The worst part is that I know some people read this post and are nodding their head in agreement because that makes perfect sense to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Baez is quoted saying that in his next interview.

He crapped all over himself trying to claim that Casey didn't have an AIM account, so it had to be George. That's until he was proven flat out wrong and had to admit that she did.

Then he went on to contradict himself by saying that "it's really difficult to put anyone behind a computer." Uh, Baez, you were the only person doing that. It's easy to claim it's George, but when the pendulum swings back your way, suddenly it's "hard to put someone behind a computer"? In fact, if you'd kept your big, fat mouth shut, no one would have known about the "fool-proof suffication" search. Although I do appreciate anything he does to further ruin his former client's chances of an interview or a book deal.

He shoots himself in the foot so often I think most people don't say anything out of pure pity for him and his delusions The only downside to that is unless his idiocy is pointed out to him, he thinks he got away with it and he's hot stuff. I dislike him so much.

All anyone has to do is look at the jail house tapes and watch George. In one of those he's begging FCA to talk to someone ANYONE in LE. To tell them what she knows in hopes of finding the "Nanny". That is not what one would say if they indeed were involved in the events of Caylee's murder.

 

[coco puff]

That always confuses me when people want to discount the duct tape. A criminal defendant can say anything after the fact to try to make themselves look better. Especially when they've had nothing to do but sit on their butt in jail and try to think up ways to absolve themselves of all blame.

If Caylee had been found with trauma to her skull or her bones and the defense had called some quack up to testify that the damage could have been done post mortem in the woods, again, that still wouldn't have been enough evidence to prove murder? So we're back to square one again?

This kind of reasoning puzzles me.

So somehow it's the state's fault for not finding Caylee sooner and daring to bring charges against an, at the very least, negligent pathetic excuse for a mother who most likely dumped her there and then actively obstructed the investigation into her disappearance?

A two year old child is dead.The State wasn't involved with Caylee's death. They didn't dump her in the woods.

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!

 

[LinasK]

A lot of the time when a murder occurs, there are no eyewitnesses. So I think the statement that "no one knows what happened the day that Caylee died" is painting with a very broad brush and makes it difficult for anyone to be convicted of murder.

Bingo! Real life is not an episode of CSI complete with an eyewitness or videotape of most murders, and most murderers lie so they won't get caught!! That's why circumstantial evidence is so important. Most juries are smart enough to connect the dots, and eyewitness testimony can be unreliable and result in false convictions.

 

[jkly]

I think that the evidence showed chloroform was applied to Caylee by Casey and her boyfriend to put her to sleep so that they could have a good time without interference. Unintentionally, Caylee was killed by the process rather than simply being put to sleep. I don't believe the homicide was intentional. If on the jury, I would have voted for child abuse resulting in death. James

So you would have voted for first degree felony murder then and she would have faced the death penalty? I would have voted for the same.

But what evidence indicates that Tony was involved in chloroforming Caylee?

What evidence indicates that Tony was involved in Caylee's death or knew Caylee was dead at all and not with the nanny the way Casey was telling everyone? What part of his story doesn't line up with the stories of everyone else Casey was keeping in the dark?

Let me guess, Casey was protecting him too? Actually, that does make more sense than a drowning, since admitting to chloroforming Caylee is admitting to a death occurring in the process of committing a felony, thus first degree felony murder.

I disagree about Tony however. I think Tony was nothing but forthright. In the text messages he was chewing her out for not telling him her daughter had been missing for the last 31 days and refused to have anything to do with her after that. He also got together with the rest of her friends to make a chart of everything they remembered about the thirty one days to help the police. He even wore a wire when he met with Lee Anthony.

I think Caylee died before Casey left the Anthony house to meet up with him and this is JMO, but I think Casey was the only person who was there when it happened. I do however, agree with you that she might have been chloroforming Caylee. I don't think it's likely, because I think she was looking up "fool-proof suffication" because the chloroform stuff (although she may have experimented with it) was ultimately too complicated for her, but I think it's possible.

Welcome to the forum by the way. :greetings::wagon:

 

[jkly]

All anyone has to do is look at the jail house tapes and watch George. In one of those he's begging FCA to talk to someone ANYONE in LE. To tell them what she knows in hopes of finding the "Nanny". That is not what one would say if they indeed were involved in the events of Caylee's murder.

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.

 

[Sky9333]

I think that the evidence showed chloroform was applied to Caylee by Casey and her boyfriend to put her to sleep so that they could have a good time without interference. Unintentionally, Caylee was killed by the process rather than simply being put to sleep. I don't believe the homicide was intentional. If on the jury, I would have voted for child abuse resulting in death. James

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.