It's no secret that I believe Casey Anthony to be among the most brazen sociopaths of our time. There was no accident. Evidence to refute the "accident theory" -- a theory that has not yet even been posited by the defense, which seems to think sticking to a ridiculous Nanny Defense is the best bet....
1. Failure to call 911. I don't care how scared you are of your parents, if your child is hurt, you call 911. Good lord, the woman called 911 when people with picket signs on her parents' front lawn bothered her! If an accident occurred, she would have been so eager to deflect blame from herself and---and this is the important part---garner sympathy and revel in the Victim Role that she would have been talking the ear off the 911 operator.
2. The infamous 31 days--kicked off with the Blockbuster visit the evening following what is believed to be Caylee's death (when, in all likelihood, her dead toddler was lying in the trunk of her car as she canoodled with her beau in the front seat, while en route to watch movies that echoed her actions. The video and photographic evidence amassed during this time shows a woman who is not grieving.
Sure, grief manifests in many different ways--behavior can be seemingly inappropriate, but in actuality be quite normal.
There is NOTHING about Casey Anthony's behavior that shows even a dysfunctional grief.
There is no grief, period.
3. The method of disposal of Caylee's body. Again, if an accidental death occurs, the normal response is to notify authorities. There is no prosecution for accident--there is no need to triple-bag your daughter,wrap her head in duct tape, give her a final "kiss" with scrapbooking stickers, and toss her like garbage. Might CPS have investigated whether an accident was due to negligence? It's possible. But the consequences for that would have been far less than those she's now facing.
Quite simply, Casey Anthony chose to dispose of her daughter. Once done, she was relieved. Problem solved. Unfortunately, the rest of the world did not share her nonchalance---she did not anticipate that others would not view the disappearance in the same way she does. Why? Because she is not capable of experiencing the full spectrum of human emotion--and
therefore cannot anticipate the appropriate responses of others.
4. A lengthy history of antisocial (not in the "doesn't go to parties" sense, but in the sociopath sense) behavior. The family has since rescinded many of its statements, but early on, readily admitted she was an habitual liar, thief, and unfit mother, among other things. Cindy Anthony even used the word "sociopath" to describe her. I have 2 family sociopaths--I can't begin to tell you how hard it is to admit to others that this problem exists. It's not something people toss around for effect--when you call a person you love a sociopath, it's usually pretty meaningful, and sufficient attention should be paid. Even if you ultimately wish you'd never said it because, for some perverse reason you can't even begin to understand, you still love that monster and don't want her to lose her life to lethal injection.
5. There has been no evidence of an accident, but much evidence to the contrary--duct tape, decomp in a car, garbage bags and a discarded child, la bella vida being lived by the defendant post-death, the very bizarre circling of the Anthony wagons once it became apparent that Caylee was dead, and let's not forget the LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and LIES.
6. Re: lies. Let's talk Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez. Does a woman whose child meets with accident concoct such a story, and steadfastly adhere to it for months on end? No. A scared woman might lie at first, but that quickly gives way to the truth.
And I have to reiterate: accidents are not punished in the same way as the callous murder of a baby--at most, she might have faced a CPS investigation and far, far lesser charges. Now, she's facing life without parole or a lethal injection. If it were an accident, do you
really not think that she would admit that an accident occurred? Even if it was the result of gross negligence?!
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.---I could go on and on and on.
There simply was not an accident.
No one wants to believe that a mother could murder their child like she did and then go about her life as if nothing happened. It's is incomprehensable, so even though the jury might suspect otherwise, IMO, they will not be able to commit to the murder 1 theory.
The fact that people "don't want to believe" that a mother can harm her child in the manner in which Casey Anthony brutally murdered and discarded her precious baby will NOT earn Casey Anthony her freedom. She may have fooled people in her life when the stakes were lower, but the whole game has changed---no one is going to buy it now. (I hate to keep bringing up the sociopath in the family thing--but from experience I know that there is sort of a tipping point; you can deny it and maintain appearances
up to a point. Beyond that point, it becomes impossible. Even if you continue to present a united front publicly.)
We may not want to believe it, but even less do we want to permit her the freedom to do it again.
Let me turn the question around--
what evidence is there that an accident did occur?
Let's make NO mistake. She's done it once--and her subsequent behavior makes it crystal-clear she'd do it again if given the opportunity. I have confidence the SA can make this very clear to a jury.
Not that I feel strongly about it or anything. (My vehemence is NOT directed at any other poster--I just happen to feel rather strongly...)
Their unwillingness to do their homework to go through all the posts and read and gather what they feel could help them. Instead it is all neatly pasted in one thread. Not a lot of homework here, eh?
