Casey Anthony Grand Jury Indictment, a Closer Look

[Brini]

Please Lord-let the defense be stupid enough to argue Cayle was a fussy child!

Is that asking too much?:innocent:
Seriously, Bakersmom, I agree with everything you say! And as far as JB and AL being gamblers! My advice to them would be:

NOW I have to clean black bean soup off my monitor, Ess!

 

[Brini]

Of course you have to think about a jury considering what "Mother of the Year" do they know that would continue to wrap duct tape around their childs face blocking their airways? No matter how bad a child acts they are no match for an adult. With all the evidence we now know about the defense should be trying to play "Let's make a deal." Save the taxpayer's money. KC has no credibility and most of all no conscious.

I think that ship has sailed, LC! They shoulda taken the deal they were offered, before Caylee was found.

 

[RR0004]

I believe that they only thing that a jury will have trouble with is whether it was premeditated. All signs do indeed point to Casey Anthony. The duct tape points to a sick mind and we can all agree that Casey Anthony is a narcissic sociopath. We can all agree that Casey is a liar, horrible mother, thief, etc..
but I really do not think that the jury will have a problem believing that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death, that she acted horribly wrong, but the fact is the prosecution is missing the element of proof of premeditation. I believe that will be the standing point.
Now, with that being said, I can argue that several layers of duct tape around a childs head indicates willful intent to do harm, but will they use it? They really need to point out the width of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's air intake. The defense can only argue that it was to "quiet" a fussy child, but if Dr. G's findings show that the tape was included to block both air passages you could prove premeditation. Has there been any confirmation of this??
The defenses only hope at this point is to plead to a lesser charge and receive LWOP, unless they gamble with the death penalty and the burden of proof on premeditation.
If I were JB or AL, I'd choose not to gamble. 90% of the jury will convict in their minds after the 911 dispatcher asks Casey why she waited 31 days to report it now. The other 10% will convict in their minds after they hear George Anthonys "interview" with the FBI. There will be no doubt in the jurors minds once they are given all the evidence (circumstantial, forensic, etc.) in its totality that Casey did it.

Yikes...if the defense uses the line that the tape was used to quiet a fussy child I have visions of the jury quite literally getting ill. What baby book was Casey reading?
Let's not forget the computer searches for chloroform and neck breaking. That would also show premeditation...unless some other member of the family chooses to fess up to plotting someone's demise.

 

[Bakersmom]

There is still time to make a deal for the defense. But.... are we so blood thirsty that death would be the only acceptable option for Casey???

Ok, now that I have asked this question let me be honest and say that I believe wholheartedly that this warrants the death penalty in my mind and heart. I also can be openminded enough to say that I do not represent the majority of the population in my thinking about the death penalty. In my point of view I ask the questions:
1. Is this person a danger to society? Yes
2. Can this person be rehabilitated? No
3. Can this person contribute to society if they can be rehabilitated? No

My answers guide me to the death penalty; however, I would think that the majority of the population would feel that LWOP would give Caylee justice. IMHO Casey Anthony is no better than Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer whom in my humble opinion deserved the death penalty instead of our tax dollars allowing them to exist, because I feel that people like that have no soul and therefore do not truely live but exist. They are a waste of space... huge waste. (credit to Casey Anthony for that last line)

 

[Bakersmom]

Yikes...if the defense uses the line that the tape was used to quiet a fussy child I have visions of the jury quite literally getting ill. What baby book was Casey reading?
Let's not forget the computer searches for chloroform and neck breaking. That would also show premeditation...unless some other member of the family chooses to fess up to plotting someone's demise.

It really depends upon if they use it (computer searches). They cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who searched it and for that exact reason. It could have been she googled after watching American Psycho on how to break necks to see if the movies really portrayed it right. How many people watch "Mythbusters"? They occasionally do shows based upon movies and debunk the things they do. Focus on what tangible items casey was in control of. There is plenty to convict her of her being responsible for caylee death but the premediataion is what I question right now.
Ok, just to clarify... I am a Mom and my son had colic as a baby and severe ear infections which would make him howl and cry. Now, duct tape never entered my mind to quiet him but gosh there were times when I just wish he would stop screaming for 5 minutes. I got through it and now is a wonderful 16 year old, but if I were a 22 year old who was a narcissic sociopath who wanted to have a party life then possibly drugging my child to sleep and duct taping her so that when she woke up she didn't scream and freak people out may have been an option. Now with that vision in your mind how do you prove premeditation?? You prove responsibility but not malicious intent to do permanent harm or death. That is the only problem I have with this case and the prosecution may already have that one figured out. Which I really hope they do.

 

[Reagan]

Yikes...if the defense uses the line that the tape was used to quiet a fussy child I have visions of the jury quite literally getting ill. What baby book was Casey reading?
Let's not forget the computer searches for chloroform and neck breaking. That would also show premeditation...unless some other member of the family chooses to fess up to plotting someone's demise.

BBM

I don't know the books name, but the pages that KC highlighted and bookmarked were "Holding the line on tantrums". Starting on #20

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/19105250/detail.html

 

[okiedokietoo]

Unfortunately, the indictment in October should not convince anyone that there was overwhelming evidence. Many innocent people have been indicted for murder. Getting a Grand Jury indictment is actually pretty easy.

If you don't believe that, take a look at this case where the person who was actually the key victim of an intended double murder was indicted for his own attack and near murder:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

The Grand Jury happened before they found Caylee. It does convince me that there is overwhelming evidence. Yes, innocent people have been indicted, convicted of crimes and sent to prison but that does not convince me that every time a person is indicted of a crime they are being framed by the police.

 

[zippitydoda]

My understanding of the GJ's role is that they hear testimony/evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to take the defendent to trial on the charges that the prosecutor has submitted. If that's the case, the prosecution listed the various charges in the indictment not the GJ itself. They are (to put it simply) saying that the prosecutor has put enough evidence before them to warrant going to trial on the specified charges.

The GJ indictment is not a verdict of guilt but in theory is required to prevent the prosecutor from charging people with no evidence to support the charges.

Having said that, it is no wonder that it only took them 1/2 hour of deliberation to bring back an indictment on these charges when they would almost certainly would have heard about the 31 days, the smell of decomp, the cadavar dogs hits, the hair in the trunk with a deathband, the lies to investigators about everything from where she worked, last saw Caylee, to the phone call she couldn't have received.

Of course it was enough to go to trial. And of course the defense will dispute or attempt to explain it all. And of course the prosecution has even more evidence now than it did then. And of course it will be enough to convict.

(...and of course I said that about the OJ trial too...but of course JB is no Johnnie Cochran and team he has put together is no dream team and KC is nobody's football hero and of course Judge Strickland is no Judge Ito...)

I agree with all that you have written.

I served on a Grand Jury last summer for 18 weeks (one day a week). And we would not have indicted a ham sandwich; in fact, we no billed several cases we felt did not meet probable cause and/or lacked enough evidence to indict.

The instructions from the Prosecutors were very simple. After hearing testimony, viewing evidence, and reviewing the law and the criteria required to meet it, we were asked to judge was probable cause met, and was it more than likely that “A” did “B”? Not their guilt or innocence, that is what the trial is for. Some cases took 2 minutes for us to vote on, and some case took an up to an hour. We did hear several attempted murder cases, and sadly, 1st degree one murder case.

 

[lin]

BBM

From your lips (or should I say fingertips?) to God's ears......

lol, nice. I often write: "From your keyboard to God's monitor."

 

[lin]

Remember the old saying about a grand jury can "indict a ham sandwich"? BUT - I do feel the State has a strong case and we may be surprised by what they have put together when all is revealed.

Still wondering about TP's surprising info too.

I think that's usually defense attorneys that say that. In reality, it's not quite that easy. Remember how long it took to get Drew Peterson indicted? And there have been many others that took quite a while.

I think what I consider to be a false impression may be more based on the GJ process wherein the prosecution presents evidence but the defense doesn't. So, the GJ really only gets one side of a case. BUT they have to find that the prosecution has put forth enough evidence to make it reasonable to try that person on those charges. The prosecution doesn't always get an indictment on capital murder, even if they ask for it, because the GJ may not find enough evidence to indict on that charge or whatever the highest level of charges the prosecution sought.

 

[lin]

Me too! Or was the news about the dismisal the "Big News"?

Maybe that was the 48 hours show?

 

[lin]

Unfortunately, the indictment in October should not convince anyone that there was overwhelming evidence. Many innocent people have been indicted for murder. Getting a Grand Jury indictment is actually pretty easy.

If you don't believe that, take a look at this case where the person who was actually the key victim of an intended double murder was indicted for his own attack and near murder:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/kristi_koslow/1_index.html

Do you have any idea what the percentages are relative to how many innocents are indicted as opposed to how many guilty? On what do you base your assertion that, "Getting a Grand Jury indictment is actually pretty easy"? How do you define "easy" in that assertion? I would assume the opposite; that there must be a lot of evidence to cause an indictment, particularly on a capital charge. That isn't to suggest a conviction by a GJ just that they have to be convinced the state has presented enough evidence to show a trial is warranted where the defense can present their explanations for whatever evidence the state used to get an indictment. Do you believe the defense will be able to explain away the evidence that caused KC's indictment? Even the 31 days?

 

[lin]

It really depends upon if they use it (computer searches). They cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who searched it and for that exact reason. It could have been she googled after watching American Psycho on how to break necks to see if the movies really portrayed it right. How many people watch "Mythbusters"? They occasionally do shows based upon movies and debunk the things they do. Focus on what tangible items casey was in control of. There is plenty to convict her of her being responsible for caylee death but the premediataion is what I question right now.
Ok, just to clarify... I am a Mom and my son had colic as a baby and severe ear infections which would make him howl and cry. Now, duct tape never entered my mind to quiet him but gosh there were times when I just wish he would stop screaming for 5 minutes. I got through it and now is a wonderful 16 year old, but if I were a 22 year old who was a narcissic sociopath who wanted to have a party life then possibly drugging my child to sleep and duct taping her so that when she woke up she didn't scream and freak people out may have been an option. Now with that vision in your mind how do you prove premeditation?? You prove responsibility but not malicious intent to do permanent harm or death. That is the only problem I have with this case and the prosecution may already have that one figured out. Which I really hope they do.

Of course, as we all know, it's up to the jury to determine the facts of the case. As for myself, I believe KC deliberately planned and intended to murder the baby. However, as you say, if she were demented enough to mean to just "quiet" Caylee, then Caylee died during felony child abuse and again we're looking at felony murder eligible for the death penalty. I don't think premeditation is a problem in this case but even if it were, the case is still death penalty eligible because I don't see how anyone could find the child wasn't being abused with a duct tape babysitter.

 

[lin]

The Grand Jury happened before they found Caylee. It does convince me that there is overwhelming evidence. Yes, innocent people have been indicted, convicted of crimes and sent to prison but that does not convince me that every time a person is indicted of a crime they are being framed by the police.

As Brini has pointed out many times on several threads, as our technology improves it becomes more and more difficult to convict the wrong person. DNA technology that has caused the release of many convicted felons in recent years nowadays prevents them from being arrested in the first place. The DNA rules them out as a suspect in the early stages of the investigation.

 

[Spangle]

I believe that they only thing that a jury will have trouble with is whether it was premeditated. All signs do indeed point to Casey Anthony. The duct tape points to a sick mind and we can all agree that Casey Anthony is a narcissic sociopath. We can all agree that Casey is a liar, horrible mother, thief, etc..
but I really do not think that the jury will have a problem believing that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death, that she acted horribly wrong, but the fact is the prosecution is missing the element of proof of premeditation. I believe that will be the standing point.
Now, with that being said, I can argue that several layers of duct tape around a childs head indicates willful intent to do harm, but will they use it? They really need to point out the width of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's air intake. The defense can only argue that it was to "quiet" a fussy child, but if Dr. G's findings show that the tape was included to block both air passages you could prove premeditation. Has there been any confirmation of this??
The defenses only hope at this point is to plead to a lesser charge and receive LWOP, unless they gamble with the death penalty and the burden of proof on premeditation.
If I were JB or AL, I'd choose not to gamble. 90% of the jury will convict in their minds after the 911 dispatcher asks Casey why she waited 31 days to report it now. The other 10% will convict in their minds after they hear George Anthonys "interview" with the FBI. There will be no doubt in the jurors minds once they are given all the evidence (circumstantial, forensic, etc.) in its totality that Casey did it.

The use of tape, it's self, is the sign of child abuse. IT's right there with the use of cough meds to put a child asleep, etc. Some folks do it, think nothing of it. But if something horrible happens, it will be considered child abuse. And the person who did it, guilty.

It doesn't have to be proven that Caylee died because of the placement of the tape. We do know that Caylee died while her face was taped. Hence, we know she died while she was being abused (face taped).

There will be no way to excuse the tape use to the jury, without admitting KC was the one to put it there. How else would they know the "story."

Death during child abuse makes it DP eligible.
It's rare that Women actually get DP in FL. If found guilty, she most likely will get LWOP, not the DP. It can happen, but statisticly... she has a real low chance of DP.

 

[hroark2112]

In my point of view I ask the questions:
1. Is this person a danger to society? Yes
2. Can this person be rehabilitated? No
3. Can this person contribute to society if they can be rehabilitated? No

3 good questions...however I might answer them a bit differently than you.

1. No, she only killed her daughter, and she's fresh out of children. Society at large is safe as long as they are not under her care and control.
2. There's nothing to rehabilitate, as long as she doesn't have more kids she won't kill again.
3. I would venture to say that 80-90% of those in society don't contribute much, if anything. If nothing else, she'll serve as a bad example for others not to follow.


I think she needs LWOP so she can actually spend her days thinking about what she did, not waiting to die. YMMV, of course!

 

[Nore]

I believe that they only thing that a jury will have trouble with is whether it was premeditated. All signs do indeed point to Casey Anthony. The duct tape points to a sick mind and we can all agree that Casey Anthony is a narcissic sociopath. We can all agree that Casey is a liar, horrible mother, thief, etc..
but I really do not think that the jury will have a problem believing that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death, that she acted horribly wrong, but the fact is the prosecution is missing the element of proof of premeditation. I believe that will be the standing point.
Now, with that being said, I can argue that several layers of duct tape around a childs head indicates willful intent to do harm, but will they use it? They really need to point out the width of the duct tape in relation to Caylee's air intake. The defense can only argue that it was to "quiet" a fussy child, but if Dr. G's findings show that the tape was included to block both air passages you could prove premeditation. Has there been any confirmation of this??
The defenses only hope at this point is to plead to a lesser charge and receive LWOP, unless they gamble with the death penalty and the burden of proof on premeditation.
If I were JB or AL, I'd choose not to gamble. 90% of the jury will convict in their minds after the 911 dispatcher asks Casey why she waited 31 days to report it now. The other 10% will convict in their minds after they hear George Anthonys "interview" with the FBI. There will be no doubt in the jurors minds once they are given all the evidence (circumstantial, forensic, etc.) in its totality that Casey did it.

---------------------------
Hi Bakersmom,Dr.G. did find the tape covered both nostrils and mouth.I would put a link to autopsy but I dont know how. I cried when I heard that.I think that could be considered cause of death. I watch Dr.G. ALL the time.I do notice she takes pictures,very often before she starts the autopsy.I cant remember if the FBI report said THEY had no photos,possibly someone else does as on the autopsy report? I hope so.:dance:

 

[Brini]

Yah, well I know what you mean, but it seemed everyone was heading for a fever-pitch of fussing about the duct tape & heart sticker, when we need to remember that Casey was indicted on a capital murder charge. They must feel they have overwhelming evidence for there to be not only that charge, but the lesser charges. I thought in reviewing it that the lesser charges of aggravated manslaughter and child abuse charges were worth looking at. What could they have to consider bringing up those charges?
For example, were there " hairs from a live Caylee" in the trunk? What evidence might they have put together to feel that there was child abuse? Did they figure out she was being medicated as a babysitter, left alone in an abondoned house or in the trunk or GKW ( God knows where?) And since it has been a slow week, I was going to do some digging . . .that's all

Folks, just the evidence we've SEEN, so far, is a lot more than convcicts most people, IMHO.

Think: SP, for one.

We can also prolly come up with a LOOOONG list of pervs against whom DNA was the ONLY evidence. Or, possession of the child was the only evidence.

I wouldn't sweat the sticker, if I were you.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

---------------------------
Hi Bakersmom,Dr.G. did find the tape covered both nostrils and mouth.I would put a link to autopsy but I dont know how. I cried when I heard that.I think that could be considered cause of death. I watch Dr.G. ALL the time.I do notice she takes pictures,very often before she starts the autopsy.I cant remember if the FBI report said THEY had no photos,possibly someone else does as on the autopsy report? I hope so.:dance:

Pictures were taken! Page 11 of the autopsy report says pictures and x-rays of the skull were obtained. But I couldn't find, in the autopsy report, anywhere that Dr G said explicitly that the tape covered both nostrils and mouth. Maybe she said it somewhere else.

In trying to get a better idea of the placement of the duct tape I used the following excerpts from multiple pages from here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

"Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair.

Dr Goldberger and Dr Garavaglia removed specimens for toxicologic examination, including strands of head hair measuring approximately six inches in length which were tied at the proximal end (near the beginning or point of attachment). These were teased from the mat of head hair which was present initially underneath the skull. . . ."

"The mat of hair which was initially found beneath the skull with strands of hair extending across the calvarium (skullcap or roof of skull) and face consists of medium brown hair. Some strands of hair could be teased from the mat and were at least 6 to 7 inches in length. There were various small defects within this mat of hair, presumably from insect activity, and there are multiple small roots growing through the mat of hair. . . ."

"The calvarium (skullcap) is totally exposed and there is only a very small adherent of soil and leaf litter. No soft tissue remains. Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium (skullcap) in the sagittal (vertical plane passing through the body from front to back) and coronal (vertical plane that divides the body into front and back) planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar (base) and lower posterior (back or rear portion) skull, including inferior (below or bottom) portions of the mandible (lower jaw). Plant roots have grown into and over the surface of the hair mat. Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior (back) mandible (lower jaw) and maxilla (upper jaw) are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating (splitting into layers). The tape is removed and allowed to dry. The matted hair is removed from the skull. Plant roots permeate the mat and there are multiple small roughly circular, irregular defects in the mat, suggestive of insect predation artifact. The hair is permitted to dry pending additional examination. Preliminary examination of the skull reveals no evidence of trauma."

This describes to me a complete tangle of duct tape and matted hair that is interwoven with plant roots covering a great portion of the skull ~ mostly the bottom. It sounds like the matted hair was so entangled with the jaws that it helped keep both the tape and lower jaw in place. But maybe this helps give us a better idea of where and how the duct tape came to be still attached?

Oh, sweet Caylee, I am so sorry . . .

 

[RR0004]

It really depends upon if they use it (computer searches). They cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the one who searched it and for that exact reason. It could have been she googled after watching American Psycho on how to break necks to see if the movies really portrayed it right. How many people watch "Mythbusters"? They occasionally do shows based upon movies and debunk the things they do. Focus on what tangible items casey was in control of. There is plenty to convict her of her being responsible for caylee death but the premediataion is what I question right now.
Ok, just to clarify... I am a Mom and my son had colic as a baby and severe ear infections which would make him howl and cry. Now, duct tape never entered my mind to quiet him but gosh there were times when I just wish he would stop screaming for 5 minutes. I got through it and now is a wonderful 16 year old, but if I were a 22 year old who was a narcissic sociopath who wanted to have a party life then possibly drugging my child to sleep and duct taping her so that when she woke up she didn't scream and freak people out may have been an option. Now with that vision in your mind how do you prove premeditation?? You prove responsibility but not malicious intent to do permanent harm or death. That is the only problem I have with this case and the prosecution may already have that one figured out. Which I really hope they do.

How do we know they can't prove the computer searches were hers and hers alone? I would think they have everyone's schedule down to the second. I'm not sure if we ever compared records (jobs, car passes, etc), but I'm sure LE has. Have I missed something?
I can relate to a colicky baby...been there done that...and not in my wildest "mommy" dreams would I consider quieting a baby that way!! Especially colic...how does that relieve pain? I would think it would compound the problem. Anyway, Caylee was a toddler not a baby. How does tape make a child sleep? The thing is...regardless of the "reason" she put the tape on this poor child...it's abusive. IMO the DP isn't harsh enough...and I've never been a true proponent of it.