Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

[yeknomaras]

I got worried when my friends started talking about the case on FB. they were actually asking if she'd be the hottest girl to ever get the death penalty... lord have mercy.... but anyway at least 3 people said she wasn't going to be convicted because of too many holes in the case.

I just hope the holes (I see them too, but can explain them away) can be patched over with the knowledge the jury is taking in. I hope my FB friends are wrong.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't see how anyone could behave as Casey did for that month, no matter how Caylee had died...so I am not sure her behavior is a factor for me. If she had murdered her, or covered up an accident, the behavior is still outrageous and inappropriate either way and can't be explained.

Therefore I would have to leave that out and go over the facts that have come in. And there is room for doubt, at this point, as to how she died, who disposed of her body and when, where she died, who knew about it, and of course the motive.

I personally believe her to be guilty of either child abuse resulting in death or neglect causing death, which may be the same thing. But I am unsure as to what her father knew and when, I do believe he knew Caylee was dead.

 

[ladylurker]

confused by comments about people saying that the prosecution didn't prove the duct tape was really across caylee's face??? am i misunderstanding these comments, or is this truly a point of confusion? the skull was found with duct tape across it which held the mandible (which otherwise would have detached) in place... what else is there to prove about the duct tape being tightly around her face/head? this comment confused me.

i was disappointed by the state's case. they could have called shirley plesea and rick plesea to give an idea of family dynamics... without knowing the family dynamics it is much harder to understand this case!!!! heck even knowing them it's hard to understand the case, but not knowing them makes things look very different indeed... i guess they were trying to make GA and CA's testimonies have more credibility by not cluing the jury in to the family dynamics?? but this seems like shooting themselves in the foot as it provides a huge clue to motive. it seems like jurors are not clear on motive, and without being clear on motive how can they determine premeditation or give a DP sentence? i was surprised by the damning evidence left out here.

 

[Kelroy]

Hi, I'm new here. Please be gentle! I'm not sure if anyone's interested in my opinion, but I think I knew as much as the jury before this case, perhaps even less. I remember hearing about it in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.

Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death . . . but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but, like others have said, I don't know if I could classify something as a "criminal act" without the prosecution showing both of those things. In other words, I still have reasonable doubt that this wasn't some sort of accident that Casey--crazy person that she is--covered up to look like a kidnapping-murder. I know that sounds insane, but I also believe Casey isn't all there, so I really could see her doing something like this.

My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away. For example, I thought Dr. Vass was very credible and I don't think his testimony was "junk science"--it's just new science--but I also don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform. I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported! Finally, I think the computer searches look bad, but they were months before Caylee died and I think it's possible Casey started searching for chloroform after seeing that myspace thing, and then followed related links. (If anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.)

I know all of this probably sounds like quibbling, but absent any history of abuse, any motive, and any really solid evidence of premeditation, I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up. Then again, I don't know; my opinion of her first-degree murder guilt actually wavers daily. All of this stuff added up certainly doesn't look good. I think, if nothing else, she's definitely guilty of manslaughter; I just can't say that I would definitely vote for first degree if the trial ended now.

For what it's worth, I really don't think she should get the death penalty even if found guilty of first-degree. But this is just totally based on my own personal belief: I, personally, could only recommend the DP if two conditions are met: If there's a veritable "smoking gun"--in other words, if the case is proved not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt; and if the person presents a clear danger to society. I don't, personally, feel either has been proved in this case, IMO.

All that said, I don't buy the defense's story, either. It's simply too ridiculous to believe. And the jury probably won't believe it, so she probably will be found guilty of first-degree murder.

Finally, there's a lot of talk about what "reasonable doubt" means, and I think GeekyGirl is right: it seems really subjective. What I find reasonable, others may not. WESH.com's Ask the Judge column says that the Florida jury instructions include this:

if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

Ask the Judge

So, yeah, apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable. Like I said, my opinion wavers and vacillates with every day!

ETA: Reading some of threads more closely, I think I'm almost in total agreement with GeekyGirl. I probably could have been less long-winded and just said that!

 

[costalpilot]

this jury isnt cooking her anyway

there is no real justice

but shes going down

 

[claudicici]

confused by comments about people saying that the prosecution didn't prove the duct tape was really across caylee's face??? am i misunderstanding these comments, or is this truly a point of confusion? the skull was found with duct tape across it which held the mandible (which otherwise would have detached) in place... what else is there to prove about the duct tape being tightly around her face/head? this comment confused me.

i was disappointed by the state's case. they could have called shirley plesea and rick plesea to give an idea of family dynamics... without knowing the family dynamics it is much harder to understand this case!!!! heck even knowing them it's hard to understand the case, but not knowing them makes things look very different indeed... i guess they were trying to make GA and CA's testimonies have more credibility by not cluing the jury in to the family dynamics?? but this seems like shooting themselves in the foot as it provides a huge clue to motive. it seems like jurors are not clear on motive, and without being clear on motive how can they determine premeditation or give a DP sentence? i was surprised by the damning evidence left out here.

ITA!!!! I just posted something similar on another thread
You just said it soo much better !

 

[crimesnooper]

Hi, I'm new here. Please be gentle! I'm not sure if anyone's interested in my opinion, but I think I knew as much as the jury before this case, perhaps even less. I remember hearing about it in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.

Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death . . . but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but, like others have said, I don't know if I could classify something as a "criminal act" without the prosecution showing both of those things. In other words, I still have reasonable doubt that this wasn't some sort of accident that Casey--crazy person that she is--covered up to look like a kidnapping-murder. I know that sounds insane, but I also believe Casey isn't all there, so I really could see her doing something like this.

My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away. For example, I thought Dr. Vass was very credible and I don't think his testimony was "junk science"--it's just new science--but I also don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform. I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported! Finally, I think the computer searches look bad, but they were months before Caylee died and I think it's possible Casey started searching for chloroform after seeing that myspace thing, and then followed related links. (If anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.)

I know all of this probably sounds like quibbling, but absent any history of abuse, any motive, and any really solid evidence of premeditation, I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up. Then again, I don't know; my opinion of her first-degree murder guilt actually wavers daily. All of this stuff added up certainly doesn't look good. I think, if nothing else, she's definitely guilty of manslaughter; I just can't say that I would definitely vote for first degree if the trial ended now.

For what it's worth, I really don't think she should get the death penalty even if found guilty of first-degree. But this is just totally based on my own personal belief: I, personally, could only recommend the DP if two conditions are met: If there's a veritable "smoking gun"--in other words, if the case is proved not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt; and if the person presents a clear danger to society. I don't, personally, feel either has been proved in this case, IMO.

All that said, I don't buy the defense's story, either. It's simply too ridiculous to believe. And the jury probably won't believe it, so she probably will be found guilty of first-degree murder.

Finally, there's a lot of talk about what "reasonable doubt" means, and I think GeekyGirl is right: it seems really subjective. What I find reasonable, others may not. WESH.com's Ask the Judge column says that the Florida jury instructions include this:


Ask the Judge

So, yeah, apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable. Like I said, my opinion wavers and vacillates with every day!

ETA: Reading some of threads more closely, I think I'm almost in total agreement with GeekyGirl. I probably could have been less long-winded and just said that!

I thought your post was great and really insightful. It's easy for those of us who have been following for years to get tunnel vision and your thoughts bring a wonderful reality check on how others might see this.

 

[bananarama]

I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported!

snipped to clarify what Dr. G said

Dr G testified that 100% of all child drownings that came through her office, were reported, 911 called, taken to the hospital, etc. IOW, this is the 1st time that a child's body came thru her office, supposedly drowned in an accident, yet it wasn't reported. HTH!

 

[GeekyGirl]

Hi, I'm new here. Please be gentle! I'm not sure if anyone's interested in my opinion, but I think I knew as much as the jury before this case, perhaps even less. I remember hearing about it in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.

Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death . . . but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but, like others have said, I don't know if I could classify something as a "criminal act" without the prosecution showing both of those things. In other words, I still have reasonable doubt that this wasn't some sort of accident that Casey--crazy person that she is--covered up to look like a kidnapping-murder. I know that sounds insane, but I also believe Casey isn't all there, so I really could see her doing something like this.

My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away. For example, I thought Dr. Vass was very credible and I don't think his testimony was "junk science"--it's just new science--but I also don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform. I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported! Finally, I think the computer searches look bad, but they were months before Caylee died and I think it's possible Casey started searching for chloroform after seeing that myspace thing, and then followed related links. (If anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.)

I know all of this probably sounds like quibbling, but absent any history of abuse, any motive, and any really solid evidence of premeditation, I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up. Then again, I don't know; my opinion of her first-degree murder guilt actually wavers daily. All of this stuff added up certainly doesn't look good. I think, if nothing else, she's definitely guilty of manslaughter; I just can't say that I would definitely vote for first degree if the trial ended now.

For what it's worth, I really don't think she should get the death penalty even if found guilty of first-degree. But this is just totally based on my own personal belief: I, personally, could only recommend the DP if two conditions are met: If there's a veritable "smoking gun"--in other words, if the case is proved not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt; and if the person presents a clear danger to society. I don't, personally, feel either has been proved in this case, IMO.

All that said, I don't buy the defense's story, either. It's simply too ridiculous to believe. And the jury probably won't believe it, so she probably will be found guilty of first-degree murder.

Finally, there's a lot of talk about what "reasonable doubt" means, and I think GeekyGirl is right: it seems really subjective. What I find reasonable, others may not. WESH.com's Ask the Judge column says that the Florida jury instructions include this:


Ask the Judge

So, yeah, apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable. Like I said, my opinion wavers and vacillates with every day!

ETA: Reading some of threads more closely, I think I'm almost in total agreement with GeekyGirl. I probably could have been less long-winded and just said that!

Thanks for this post, I think you managed to capture what I feel much more succinctly than I have.

 

[lynxofsd]

Hi, I'm new here...I remember hearing [the case] in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.

Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death...but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but...

My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away... I don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform...I still don't see how [Dr. G] can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know?

...if anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.

...I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up.

...apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable.

I appreciated your post a great deal--thank you for your thoughts.

I think the chloroform is a red herring, personally. The two experts that testified gave enough of a conflicting opinion about its concentration in the trunk that the jury may likely dismiss it. There is no way Casey decided one day to practice at organic chemistry by synthesizing a volatile liquid in the laundry sink after reading about it on the Internet. I also think LE would have discovered a link to a legitimate or illegitimate source of chloroform if she had managed to procure it--and without that, I don't believe she had any significant source of it at all. It's one of the weakest elements of the state's case, IMO.

Your point about the "100% of accidents are reported" is humorous, but true. Someone in the jury will probably bring that up when accidental death is being discussed in the jury room.

The computer searches don't prove anything to me, either. It's a stretch, IMO, to link that to premeditation.

I'd vote for conviction, though. The 31 days of deception documented by numerous people, the apparent remorselessness or lack of an emotional response related to the death of her child (which makes me feel this was no accident), the smell of human decomposition detected in the trunk by a number of professionals and laypeople alike, and the duct tape on Caylee's skull seal the deal for me.

The rest of the evidence is just gilding the lily, IMHO.

 

[Leah0107]

Hi, I'm new here. Please be gentle! I'm not sure if anyone's interested in my opinion, but I think I knew as much as the jury before this case, perhaps even less. I remember hearing about it in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.

Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death . . . but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but, like others have said, I don't know if I could classify something as a "criminal act" without the prosecution showing both of those things. In other words, I still have reasonable doubt that this wasn't some sort of accident that Casey--crazy person that she is--covered up to look like a kidnapping-murder. I know that sounds insane, but I also believe Casey isn't all there, so I really could see her doing something like this.

My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away. For example, I thought Dr. Vass was very credible and I don't think his testimony was "junk science"--it's just new science--but I also don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform. I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported! Finally, I think the computer searches look bad, but they were months before Caylee died and I think it's possible Casey started searching for chloroform after seeing that myspace thing, and then followed related links. (If anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.)

I know all of this probably sounds like quibbling, but absent any history of abuse, any motive, and any really solid evidence of premeditation, I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up. Then again, I don't know; my opinion of her first-degree murder guilt actually wavers daily. All of this stuff added up certainly doesn't look good. I think, if nothing else, she's definitely guilty of manslaughter; I just can't say that I would definitely vote for first degree if the trial ended now.

For what it's worth, I really don't think she should get the death penalty even if found guilty of first-degree. But this is just totally based on my own personal belief: I, personally, could only recommend the DP if two conditions are met: If there's a veritable "smoking gun"--in other words, if the case is proved not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt; and if the person presents a clear danger to society. I don't, personally, feel either has been proved in this case, IMO.

All that said, I don't buy the defense's story, either. It's simply too ridiculous to believe. And the jury probably won't believe it, so she probably will be found guilty of first-degree murder.

Finally, there's a lot of talk about what "reasonable doubt" means, and I think GeekyGirl is right: it seems really subjective. What I find reasonable, others may not. WESH.com's Ask the Judge column says that the Florida jury instructions include this:


Ask the Judge

So, yeah, apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable. Like I said, my opinion wavers and vacillates with every day!

ETA: Reading some of threads more closely, I think I'm almost in total agreement with GeekyGirl. I probably could have been less long-winded and just said that!

Kelroy - thanks for this - very helpful

if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Hi, I'm new here. Please be gentle! I'm not sure if anyone's interested in my opinion, but I think I knew as much as the jury before this case, perhaps even less. I remember hearing about it in 2008 and immediately thinking Casey was guilty; I mean, a child missing for a month and the mother lying about her whereabouts to police? Making up a nanny and a job? And that's the last I really thought about it.

Now that I've watched a lot of the trial, I still firmly believe that Casey was responsible for her death . . . but I'm not totally convinced that it was premeditated murder, either. I know the first-degree murder charge doesn't require the state to prove motive and premeditation, but, like others have said, I don't know if I could classify something as a "criminal act" without the prosecution showing both of those things. In other words, I still have reasonable doubt that this wasn't some sort of accident that Casey--crazy person that she is--covered up to look like a kidnapping-murder. I know that sounds insane, but I also believe Casey isn't all there, so I really could see her doing something like this.

My doubt comes mainly from holes in the case that I just haven't been able to explain away. For example, I thought Dr. Vass was very credible and I don't think his testimony was "junk science"--it's just new science--but I also don't see someone like Casey (or most people, really) just making a batch of a highly unstable chemical like chloroform. I also thought Dr. G was very credible, but I still don't see how she can argue that "100 percent of accidents are reported"; if any are not reported, how would she know? They haven't been reported! Finally, I think the computer searches look bad, but they were months before Caylee died and I think it's possible Casey started searching for chloroform after seeing that myspace thing, and then followed related links. (If anybody were to ever do a forensic investigation of my computer, I shudder to think of the searches they'd find; I've researched the Manson case, for example, and the searches related to that probably make me look like a serial killer.)

I know all of this probably sounds like quibbling, but absent any history of abuse, any motive, and any really solid evidence of premeditation, I'm not totally sure that this wasn't a terrible accident that was badly covered up. Then again, I don't know; my opinion of her first-degree murder guilt actually wavers daily. All of this stuff added up certainly doesn't look good. I think, if nothing else, she's definitely guilty of manslaughter; I just can't say that I would definitely vote for first degree if the trial ended now.

For what it's worth, I really don't think she should get the death penalty even if found guilty of first-degree. But this is just totally based on my own personal belief: I, personally, could only recommend the DP if two conditions are met: If there's a veritable "smoking gun"--in other words, if the case is proved not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt; and if the person presents a clear danger to society. I don't, personally, feel either has been proved in this case, IMO.

All that said, I don't buy the defense's story, either. It's simply too ridiculous to believe. And the jury probably won't believe it, so she probably will be found guilty of first-degree murder.

Finally, there's a lot of talk about what "reasonable doubt" means, and I think GeekyGirl is right: it seems really subjective. What I find reasonable, others may not. WESH.com's Ask the Judge column says that the Florida jury instructions include this:


Ask the Judge

So, yeah, apparently I do have reasonable doubt so far, even if others might find it unreasonable. Like I said, my opinion wavers and vacillates with every day!

ETA: Reading some of threads more closely, I think I'm almost in total agreement with GeekyGirl. I probably could have been less long-winded and just said that!

:Welcome1:

 

[claudicici]

Thank you for sharing your opinion Kelroy,
ICA by the way...I do tend to believe KC murdered Caylee but I have reasonable doubt that it was pre- meditated....I also can't rule out an accidental drowning I can totally see KC not telling anyone and pretend it was a kidnapping,I'm also on the fence about the sexual abuse,I do think it could have happened.
The only thing I'm 100% sure about is that KC is a pathological liar .
I don't even think she's a sociopath.I think she has a tremendous abilitiy to detach from reality.

 

[Kelroy]

Thanks for the welcome, everyone! Like I said, my opinion vacillates often; I think I'd make a terrible juror. After seeing Drs. Huntington and Spitz, neither of whom illuminated anything for me, I have to say my doubt has certainly not increased! They were, IMO, not great witnesses for the defense. I guess this is probably what it comes down to for me at this point:

The 31 days of deception documented by numerous people, the apparent remorselessness or lack of an emotional response related to the death of her child (which makes me feel this was no accident), the smell of human decomposition detected in the trunk by a number of professionals and laypeople alike, and the duct tape on Caylee's skull seal the deal for me.

The rest of the evidence is just gilding the lily, IMHO.

Yeah, when you put it all together, the evidence that seemed damning three years ago is still the most damning evidence. Though nothing substantial has really been uncovered since then, this stuff is all quite telling. I still feel all this stuff doesn't rule out an accident, but nobody has offered, IMO, any really solid explanation for the duct tape or the remorselessness in that case. And I do think the state has proved that the body was in the trunk; there's seriously no other logical explanation for the smell.

I can't believe the defense didn't offer a more plausible story in opening statements. I could perhaps easily believe that Caylee accidentally drowned and that Casey panicked--but why was the defense so hell-bent on absolving her of all untoward behavior? Why couldn't they say she was the one who transported the body in her trunk, that she used the duct tape to stage a kidnapping? Eh, now that I type it out, that story sounds crazy, too. If it was an accident, it couldn't have been a very innocent one, since I think the vast majority of people--clinically insane ones, too!--would agree that throwing a child into the woods covered in duct tape looks worse than reporting an accidental drowning.

At the same time, you know, I've never seen any evidence of abuse or violence or hatred of Caylee in Casey's past (except for some questionable hearsay), so it's hard to buy first-degree murder as well. I guess the fact is that the world and people are often illogical, and I'm no less unsure than when I started watching this trial!

Dr G testified that 100% of all child drownings that came through her office, were reported, 911 called, taken to the hospital, etc. IOW, this is the 1st time that a child's body came thru her office, supposedly drowned in an accident, yet it wasn't reported. HTH!

Yes, that does make more sense! I do find her very likable and competent. I guess I was just surprised that the defense didn't go after some of her statements more aggressively; then she might have clarified them even further. I mean, I definitely agree with her that "no child should have duct tape on its face," but that doesn't mean no child could or would. I also thought Mason should have asked her if she could medically rule out drowning; she would have had to say no, of course. I guess I really wanted to agree with her, but I wish she had explained her statements even further. As I think GeekyGirl was saying, Dr. G was explaining what happens in a logical world, and there's nothing logical about this case.

I wonder why Mason didn't ask those questions? Was he afraid she might say something even more harmful to the defense? He just relied on that folksy "you mean to tell this here jury . . .?" posture that I find so annoying (in my totally unobjective opinion).

 

[tamild]

I can't believe the defense didn't offer a more plausible story in opening statements. I could perhaps easily believe that Caylee accidentally drowned and that Casey panicked--but why was the defense so hell-bent on absolving her of all untoward behavior? Why couldn't they say she was the one who transported the body in her trunk, that she used the duct tape to stage a kidnapping? Eh, now that I type it out, that story sounds crazy, too. If it was an accident, it couldn't have been a very innocent one, since I think the vast majority of people--clinically insane ones, too!--would agree that throwing a child into the woods covered in duct tape looks worse than reporting an accidental drowning.

I totally agree, and I also wonder this...IF she was staging a kidnapping, why so MUCH duct tape? Wouldn't one piece placed directly over Caylee's mouth been sufficient to make it look like a kidnapping?

Furthermore, if the defense is "we don't know what happened to Caylee's body after she drowned" why are they even bothering to argue anything at all? Wouldn't you have to pretty much concede to whatever theory the State presents with regard to anything postmortem? For instance, if someone steals your wallet, it's gone. You have no idea what happened to it until your credit card company starts tracking purchases, your ID is found in a dumpster, etc. In other words, you have to take the word of the investigators as to what actually happened because you have no personal knowledge of what happened from the time the wallet left your possession. Does the defense not understand that they are essentially trying to sell, "we don't know what happened, but everything you claim happened is a lie because we know it didn't happen that way???:banghead:

 

[Momma Hen]

My elderly mother called yesterday and wanted to talk about ICA. She has never read anything online. Her only information is the trial and talk shows. She states she is glued to the tv everyday. (I had no idea she was following the case)

She is amazed at the inept defense and thinks Biaz is a joke. Casey is guilty as sin according to her. When questioned why she felt that way, "because no mother would not report a child missing for a month, or go out partying if the child had died accidentally." The duct tape was a big factor in her decision also.

Not knowing the Anthony family background, she even commented that ICA was jealous of how much her parents loved Caylee and killed her to get back at her mother. She called her a spoiled brat from how she acted in the jail videos.

Her verdict - Guilt and recommend the DP. I told her I doubt the DP will be handed down. She disagreed with me and said ICA deserves it.

So there is what a 77 year old Gma thinks...almost forgot - she laughed at Dr. Spitz and said he was senile (at her age, I think she is entitled to make that assessment by personal experience).

 

[Hisimage]

Today at the family BBQ, this case came up. Members of my family who had never heard about ICA or CAylee were talking about it. They either watch HLN (west coast) or the news programs at night. They ALL hands down ---- guilty, guilty , guilty with the big DP.
I never mentioned I followed at all until my daughter piped up that I was obsessed with the case. They will now be searching for the live streams tomorrow morning. LOL.

Just happy to hear it's not just us who have followed for years. I wanted to let them know " you guys there is sooooo much more to hear and know", but honestly decided it was for them to figure it out. As I've said, they just can't stand her, and I don't really think they've been able to get to know her as much as we did.

 

[Chewy]

This. It's not that I don't think she's responsible for her daughter's death, I do, but I'm worried the she'll be given the DP because of the emotional nature of the case rather than the actual evidence. The idea of that scares more than a little bit. The DP has it's place, but it shouldn't be used as a tool for what amounts to state sanctioned lynching. MOO

Having watched a lot of Kelly Siegler's cases on Mystery 48 Hours, I know that one of the requirements for the DP is "are they a threat to society IN jail or OUT" If they are a threat it usually is what calls for the death penalty.

I don't think Casey deliberately killed Caylee. But her willful disregard for the loss of her child and subsequent lying to the police and leading them on a wild goose chase while at the same time accusing an innocent person, does show that this woman has no remorse and does not seem to function like a normal person.

I'd compare her lack of remorse to that of a Pedophile. I tend to have a slight bit of sympathy for pedophiles because they are born that way IMHO and can't control themselves. They are sick.

But if you have a pedophile who doesn't care and lies and hurts children, that comes across very different than one who is destroyed by his urges and wants help.

Both may have committed the same crime, but the lack of remorse definitely makes one more threatening to the public than others.

Casey Anthony IMHO is a sociopath. She didn't care that her daughter died. That's why she partied on. It meant nothing to her. It just "happened."

If a person has that little regard for her own child, you can be sure she's not going to care about anyone else on the planet.

This threat is what they need to establish for the DP and it's not based on "emotion" it's based on logic.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Having watched a lot of Kelly Siegler's cases on Mystery 48 Hours, I know that one of the requirements for the DP is "are they a threat to society IN jail or OUT" If they are a threat it usually is what calls for the death penalty.

I don't think Casey deliberately killed Caylee. But her willful disregard for the loss of her child and subsequent lying to the police and leading them on a wild goose chase while at the same time accusing an innocent person, does show that this woman has no remorse and does not seem to function like a normal person.

I'd compare her lack of remorse to that of a Pedophile. I tend to have a slight bit of sympathy for pedophiles because they are born that way IMHO and can't control themselves. They are sick.

But if you have a pedophile who doesn't care and lies and hurts children, that comes across very different than one who is destroyed by his urges and wants help.

Both may have committed the same crime, but the lack of remorse definitely makes one more threatening to the public than others.

Casey Anthony IMHO is a sociopath. She didn't care that her daughter died. That's why she partied on. It meant nothing to her. It just "happened."

If a person has that little regard for her own child, you can be sure she's not going to care about anyone else on the planet.

This threat is what they need to establish for the DP and it's not based on "emotion" it's based on logic.

And it if those were the legal requirements for a DP sentence in Florida, I wouldn't argue against it, because I think what you've posted makes a lot sense. However, the current statutes as I understand them require a conviction of first degree murder (felony murder rule or premeditation). Juror's have a moral and ethical responsibility to return a verdict based on the laws of the state, and as utterly despicable and heinous as I find Casey Anthony, I can not argue in good conscience that it's acceptable to return a verdict based on anything other than a determination that the facts evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the she guilty of the crimes she is charged with. Again, I realize it's a highly emotional case, and I respect your thoughts on the subject. I always appreciate a well reasoned response to my posts.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

I can't believe the defense didn't offer a more plausible story in opening statements. I could perhaps easily believe that Caylee accidentally drowned and that Casey panicked--but why was the defense so hell-bent on absolving her of all untoward behavior? Why couldn't they say she was the one who transported the body in her trunk, that she used the duct tape to stage a kidnapping? Eh, now that I type it out, that story sounds crazy, too. If it was an accident, it couldn't have been a very innocent one, since I think the vast majority of people--clinically insane ones, too!--would agree that throwing a child into the woods covered in duct tape looks worse than reporting an accidental drowning.

At the same time, you know, I've never seen any evidence of abuse or violence or hatred of Caylee in Casey's past (except for some questionable hearsay), so it's hard to buy first-degree murder as well. I guess the fact is that the world and people are often illogical, and I'm no less unsure than when I started watching this trial!

I'm right there with you Kelroy, the defense's story baffled me at first, but I finally realized it wasn't really the defense that was so hell bent on absolving her of ALL untoward behavior, it is their client demanding it. I would bet money that the defense...most of of them least, wanted to go with the accidental drowning (no George involved) ICA panicking and then retreating to her made up Casey World because she couldn't deal with it, but ICA would have none of that and insisted they go with her latest version of events.

As for past evidence of abuse...sadly, there are alot of seemingly wonderful mother's out there sitting in jail right now because they killed their children, but didn't manage to hide the body long enough for their to be no evidence of how they did it.