Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[JBean]

Isn't defense statement also considered "testimony"? Wouldn't that provide culpable negligence by KC per defense statement?
Home > Laws > The 2010 Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > Chapter 782 > Section 07
2010 Florida Statutes (including Special Session A)
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 782
HOMICIDE View Entire Chapter


782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.

Well, do you believe the defense?

 

[Clock's Tickin]

That's right-premeditation is not an element of manslaughter-so the only 2 ways to go on it are child abuse as the aggravating circumstance or culpable negligence. The stae argues child abuse and premeditation-but they did not argue accident or negligence. So the jury would have had to bought into the defense notion of an accident or negligence to convict on this. This is my opinion.

They can find her guilty of it, but IMO, without the aggarvated child abuse to substantiate or without a state argument FOR accident or negligence I am not sure how the jury would arrive at that conclusion.

But be clear,the state did argue aggravated child abuse which would have opened the door to guilty verdicts-but the jury didn't go for it. IMO and IMO only this is the heart of the matter.

Guilty on child abuse would have made a clear path to guilty in any direction,ie manslaughter or murder in some degree. But no aggravted child abuse ruled out felony murder with ease.

Elements to be proven for:
AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.
Or
The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.
I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
If you find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver. “Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.
“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.
Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child. Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect.



MURDER – FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder. In order to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the State must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder. While you must all agree that the State has proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you need not be unanimous in your opinion as to whether that finding is based upon premeditated murder or felony murder as I shall now define those terms.
To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony.
3. There was a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
FELONY MURDER – FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of Aggravated Child Abuse.
Or
The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit Aggravated Child Abuse. 3. Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.
In order to convict of First Degree Felony Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.


http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

So by definition, defense offer of an "accidental drowning" followed by the "failure to provide medical care" such as CPR or emergency services from a 911 call would be an automatic GUILTY to the aggravated manslaughter without prosecution having to do anything, right?

 

[Clock's Tickin]

Well, do you believe the defense?

No, but if a jury is to look at ALL presented evidence and TESTIMONY-no matter whose side they chose to believe-the manslaughter charge should've stuck like glue--I just don't get it.....I mean, to me, that was an admission of guilt, the closest thing to a confession that the defense could come.

 

[magic-cat]

The foreman's interview only confirms what I've been talking about in this thread. If you didn't buy GA and thought he wasn't being truthful, then you really don't know what he really knows back on June 16th. If you don't know what he knows, you don't know if he's anyway involved.

I asked this during the trial threads but I'll ask again, why is everyone so quick to defend GA on everything he says about the last time he saw Caylee and when he found the car? Nobody had a problem throwing CA and LA to the wolves but when it comes to George, it's hands off.

As I have stated previously, it is not George's WORD that matters here. Make everything he said a lie? And it does not make Casey any less guilty. It was Casey who:
lied to everyone coming and going about where Caylee was
never told a soul her daughter was dead OR missing
hid out from and lied to her mother for 31 days
came up with outlandish stories to buy herself one more day day by day
complained of her car stinking like death
abandoned her car
robbed her friends for money
got a tattoo that said BEAUTIFUL LIFE
partied her butt off and entered a HOT BODY contest
lied to police about her daughters whereabouts
made up a fake nanny
lied for two years about having a job
made that deplorable call home from the jail where SHE stated: All anyone cares about is finding Caylee, and get me Tony's number, and calling ya'll? Waste huge waste...
Acted like she culd care less what happened to Caylee
Refused to speak with Texas EquaSearch when they came to look for her daughter
Implicated others once she knew her a$$ was on the line
Accused her brother AND her father of molesting her YEARS after the disappearance

I could go on and on. Fact is, the entire family are quite obviously liars, but if being a liar does not make Casey a murderer how in the name of Methusala does it make George a murderer? There is a little MORE against Casey than JUST lies.

Just a tiny wee bit more against her than that.
:sick:

 

[cityslick]

So by definition, defense offer of an "accidental drowning" followed by the "failure to provide medical care" such as CPR or emergency services from a 911 call would be an automatic GUILTY to the aggravated manslaughter without prosecution having to do anything, right?

Not really, because the DT opening statement is not evidence. The DT doesn't have to prove anything in their OS.

 

[cityslick]

As I have stated previously, it is not George's WORD that matters here. Make everything he said a lie? And it does not make Casey any less guilty. It was Casey who:
lied to everyone coming and going about where Caylee was
never told a soul her daughter was dead OR missing
hid out from and lied to her mother for 31 days
came up with outlandish stories to buy herself one more day day by day
complained of her car stinking like death
abandoned her car
robbed her friends for money
got a tattoo that said BEAUTIFUL LIFE
partied her butt off and entered a HOT BODY contest
lied to police about her daughters whereabouts
made up a fake nanny
lied for two years about having a job
made that deplorable call home from the jail where SHE stated: All anyone cares about is finding Caylee, and get me Tony's number, and calling ya'll? Waste huge waste...
Acted like she culd care less what happened to Caylee
Refused to speak with Texas EquaSearch when they came to look for her daughter
Implicated others once she knew her a$$ was on the line
Accused her brother AND her father of molesting her YEARS after the disappearance

I could go on and on. Fact is, the entire family are quite obviously liars, but if being a liar does not make Casey a murderer how in the name of Methusala does it make George a murderer? There is a little MORE against Casey than JUST lies.

Just a tiny wee bit more against her than that.
:sick:

What about the notion that I've heard brought up (by TH's and the jury I think) that they (jury) had a hard time reconciling the lying because it's not something that started as soon as Caylee disappeared? Meaning, all those lies she told (and was living) didn't start as a result of her trying to cover something up, she had been lying about the nanny way before that (and other things).

 

[Boston]

It is very simple to deduce given some thought.
George KNEW Casey was fine.
Her mother was talking to her and texting with her every single day.
He had not SEEN Caylee at all for over 30 days.
He was hoping against hope that what he smelled in that car was not Caylee and if it WAS? Then he was obviously prepared to protect his daughter.

Simple as that.

I was under the impression that they hadn't heard from Casey in 4 or 5 days..?

Remember that Cindy said during the 911 call..

"That we've been searching for my daughter & we found her (or her car)today but we still can't find my Granddaughter"...Something along those lines

At the very least you have to believe that if George thought the smell in the trunk was "Human Decomp" as he stated many times he should have called 911..

There is no excuse IMO for not calling 911

 

[Solange82200]

What about the notion that I've heard brought up (by TH's and the jury I think) that they (jury) had a hard time reconciling the lying because it's not something that started as soon as Caylee disappeared? Meaning, all those lies she told (and was living) didn't start as a result of her trying to cover something up, she had been lying about the nanny way before that (and other things).

I dont even follow that logic. Every lie she has told has been to get over on people and use them. And somehow that proves that she isnt lying for the same reason here? It has been repeated over and over the reasons for her lies, which started mostly when Caylee was born. She did not want to work to support her daughter, so she lied about her job. She knew her mom did not want her to take Caylee around all kinds of guys, so she made up the perfect man to use as an alibi: a rich guy who has a child the same age. She made up a nanny because her parents would obviously wonder who was watching Caylee while Casey was at work. She lied to Lauren or Cristina (cant remember which) about working at SPorts Authority, and got them to babysit Caylee for free so she could "work", when in reality she was going out with guys. The lies prove that she is a psychopath that has no problem getting over and using people around her. And this SOMEHOW proves that didnt kill her daughter??? Can someone explain that logic????????????????

 

[Solange82200]

I was under the impression that they hadn't heard from Casey in 4 or 5 days..?

Remember that Cindy said during the 911 call..

"That we've been searching for my daughter & we found her (or her car)today but we still can't find my Granddaughter"...Something along those lines

At the very least you have to believe that if George thought the smell in the trunk was "Human Decomp" as he stated many times he should have called 911..

There is no excuse IMO for not calling 911

She had been in contact with Casey, but Casey wasnt telling her where she was. Also, after finding the car, she realized then that Casey had been lying about being in Jacksonville. I think that is where the "ive been searching for my daughter" comment came from. Simon Birch didnt call 911 either, but that doesnt mean he was involved in Caylee's death. I agree that normal people would have called 911, but I disagree that it means George was involved in Caylee's death. I think he convinced himself that it was the trash that smelled, and since Casey had been telling Cindy she and Caylee were fine, I can see why he would not quite believe that someone was dead yet.

 

[grammieto5]

That's right-premeditation is not an element of manslaughter-so the only 2 ways to go on it are child abuse as the aggravating circumstance or culpable negligence. The stae argues child abuse and premeditation-but they did not argue accident or negligence. So the jury would have had to bought into the defense notion of an accident or negligence to convict on this. This is my opinion.

They can find her guilty of it, but IMO, without the aggarvated child abuse to substantiate or without a state argument FOR accident or negligence I am not sure how the jury would arrive at that conclusion.

But be clear,the state did argue aggravated child abuse which would have opened the door to guilty verdicts-but the jury didn't go for it. IMO and IMO only this is the heart of the matter.

Guilty on child abuse would have made a clear path to guilty in any direction,ie manslaughter or murder in some degree. But no aggravted child abuse ruled out felony murder with ease.

Elements to be proven for:
AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.
Or
The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.
I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
If you find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver. “Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.
“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.
Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child. Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect.



MURDER – FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder. In order to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the State must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder. While you must all agree that the State has proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you need not be unanimous in your opinion as to whether that finding is based upon premeditated murder or felony murder as I shall now define those terms.
To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony.
3. There was a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
FELONY MURDER – FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of Aggravated Child Abuse.
Or
The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit Aggravated Child Abuse. 3. Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.
In order to convict of First Degree Felony Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.


http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

Am I wrong in believing this was count 3?

 

[magic-cat]

What about the notion that I've heard brought up (by TH's and the jury I think) that they (jury) had a hard time reconciling the lying because it's not something that started as soon as Caylee disappeared? Meaning, all those lies she told (and was living) didn't start as a result of her trying to cover something up, she had been lying about the nanny way before that (and other things).

She had been lying for years-exactly. And what was she lying about and why for all those years? She lied about having to work so she could get away from her daughter. She lied about having a job so she would have a REASONABLE exxcuse to escape from her daughter. EVERY SINGLE LIE SHE TOLD pre-Caylee death? To get away from Caylee. That is pretty telling to me...Maybe she just got tired of HAVING to lie in order to gain her freedom and she just was fed up and decided to put an end to it...or her...:sick: She did not WANT to be responsible for her daughter. She could not even tailor her lies to match her parents schedules and make it easier on them. She dropped Caylee off, on an almost daily basis to Cindy AT work, so she could go have fun and run around with friends and see boys and be FREE. She did not want Caylee. She did not love Caylee. She only loves herself.

 

[grammieto5]

Not really, because the DT opening statement is not evidence. The DT doesn't have to prove anything in their OS.

Well I do agree with this. All the DT has to do is lie and destroy the innocent, turn their client into the victim and make sure the true victim is forgotten. Until Caylee's Law goes into effect there will be a lot of babies thrown in the swamps.

 

[JayCeeVee]

SA and LE, and Judge Perry, people of Fl, Caylee will always know you tried for her. Sleep well and know America loves you.

Sorry but LE is not loved in my neck of the woods. LE failed miserably in following up on Kronk's lead to the woods; LE even admonished him for calling them. It was LEs responsbility to follow this lead vigorously and after the 3rd call in August, he gave up. As a private citizen, I would have photo'd the area and gone to the media since LE pretty much stated the body wasn't there...think they were afraid of snakes too whatever. At any rate, a conviction was probably lost because LE snoozed instead of doing everything within their realm to find the body of this beautiful little girl. Making Kronk the bad guy was their way of thanking him.

Love all you want but a guilty Mother will be going free shortly...sure glad I don't live in her neighborhood.

 

[cityslick]

I dont even follow that logic. Every lie she has told has been to get over on people and use them. And somehow that proves that she isnt lying for the same reason here? It has been repeated over and over the reasons for her lies, which started mostly when Caylee was born. She did not want to work to support her daughter, so she lied about her job. She knew her mom did not want her to take Caylee around all kinds of guys, so she made up the perfect man to use as an alibi: a rich guy who has a child the same age. She made up a nanny because her parents would obviously wonder who was watching Caylee while Casey was at work. She lied to Lauren or Cristina (cant remember which) about working at SPorts Authority, and got them to babysit Caylee for free so she could "work", when in reality she was going out with guys. The lies prove that she is a psychopath that has no problem getting over and using people around her. And this SOMEHOW proves that didnt kill her daughter??? Can someone explain that logic????????????????

BBM

That's not the way the jury is supposed to answer that question. It's not how it somehow proves she didn't kill her daughter, it's how does it prove she DID kill her daughter when she has a history of lying to begin with.

 

[cityslick]

She had been lying for years-exactly. And what was she lying about and why for all those years? She lied about having to work so she could get away from her daughter. She lied about having a job so she would have a REASONABLE exxcuse to escape from her daughter. EVERY SINGLE LIE SHE TOLD pre-Caylee death? To get away from Caylee. That is pretty telling to me...Maybe she just got tired of HAVING to lie in order to gain her freedom and she just was fed up and decided to put an end to it...or her...:sick: She did not WANT to be responsible for her daughter. She could not even tailor her lies to match her parents schedules and make it easier on them. She dropped Caylee off, on an almost daily basis to Cindy AT work, so she could go have fun and run around with friends and see boys and be FREE. She did not want Caylee. She did not love Caylee. She only loves herself.

BBM

And if there is anywhere the state lost the case, it's here where I bolded. They did not emphasis this point. They got too focused on the science and not to the 'why' would Casey do this. Then you allow the defense to show picture after picture of a happy Casey and Caylee and a room where Casey has photos all over the place of Caylee and then you wonder why the jury would question if Casey loved Caylee.

 

[magic-cat]

BBM

That's not the way the jury is supposed to answer that question. It's not how it somehow proves she didn't kill her daughter, it's how does it prove she DID kill her daughter when she has a history of lying to begin with.

The entire complete purpose of all her lies from the day Caylee was born was to ESCAPE from Caylee. THIS should have been considered. Why she lied...it was ALL every tiny little lie to ESCAPE FROM CARING FOR AND BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR her daughter. She was leaving Caylee as a TINY infant, on the premise of "working" with her friend Loren and then with the Grunds...so she could go do what? ANYTHING but take care of her child.:banghead:

 

[magic-cat]

BBM

And if there is anywhere the state lost the case, it's here where I bolded. They did not emphasis this point. They got too focused on the science and not to the 'why' would Casey do this. Then you allow the defense to show picture after picture of a happy Casey and Caylee and a room where Casey has photos all over the place of Caylee and then you wonder why the jury would question if Casey loved Caylee.

I agree. They should have hammered this home but then again, the jurors should have wondered WHY she was leaving her daughter every day when she in fact had no job. They should have logically concluded that all her lies were an effort to escape her mothering duties...:banghead:

 

[Solange82200]

BBM

That's not the way the jury is supposed to answer that question. It's not how it somehow proves she didn't kill her daughter, it's how does it prove she DID kill her daughter when she has a history of lying to begin with.

Wow, I keep getting hit with strawman arguments. I never said it proved she killed Caylee. Her lies about the disappearance and the other evidence proves she killed Caylee. My comment was directly in response to someone saying that the jury did not find her lying about her daughter's death suspicious since she lied before. THEY SAID HER PREVIOUS LIES SOMEHOW EXPLAIN HER LYING ABOUT A SUPPOSED ACCIDENT. My comment was in response to that, pointing out that the lies do not explain a person lying about a death. I think you have to look at the post I was responding to and the context to see that I was not saying what you are accusing me of.

 

[magic-cat]

Also in this "she was a good mother" vein...
On the surface? Maybe it appeared that way...
But look a little deeper?
Cindy and George Anthony provided everything-not only for Caylee but for Casey as well. They were providing them both with food, shelter, clothing, toys, and every other single little thing a human being needs for day to day life. They were providing the gas for Casey's car, and paying the insurance. They were spotting her money continually. They were babysitting Caylee almost every single evening/night and every weekend. During some of that time Caylee was ALSO being babysat in the daytime by others. Cindy took Caylee in the pool and bathed her and fed her her dinner and put her to bed...George fed her her breakfast and took her outside in the mornings...What did this leave for Casey to be responsible for? Lunch? How hard is it to appear to be a good and loving mother to those on the outside looking in, when your only basic interaction with your daughter is fixing her lunch and smiling for the camera? Are these jurors kidding?

Just FYI to this jury: People who abuse their kids usually do not do it in front of the world at large-they keep it as secret as they can so nobody will know them for the monster they really are. It is easy to smile and appear to love your child when you are not the one responsible for hardly anything to do with them. Cindy was Caylee's mother figure...Casey was like a big sister to her, and we all know how little girls love their big sissy's even if big sis treats them like crap...they will still follow her to the ends of the earth...

These people were looking for a way out of there so they could get to their trips and vacations and interviews. They displayed ZERO honor to Caylee Marie... the ONLY victim in this case.

If you added up all the total time that each of those folks who testified said she appeared loving, Caylee loved her, they had an amazing bond, etc...??? It probably would not amount to a week of total time...and based on that sliver of the pie this jury threw the entire life of Caylee into the swamp as surely as her mother did.

 

[Solange82200]

I keep seeing a theme with everyone who agrees with the verdict. They take each little piece of evidence by itself and try to argue any possible theory of innocence, no matter how unreasonable it is. Does everyone understand the term reasonable doubt should apply to the evidence as a whole, and not each piece on it's own? I don't see that in the explanations I am hearing from those who agree with the verdict