Does Anyone here think Casey Anthony is innocent?

[whiskeygurl]

Answer to your question is. NO. She is a cold blooded. I also sense the same from Cindy. Daughter like mother. Cold and calculated.

 

[JBean]

this thread is about KC's innocence. Stay on topic and no name calling.

 

[RIVERBABE60]

Well...some people complained about a discussion on another thread and someone complained and we got "shut down".

Too bad. I didn't personally think anything was going bad, some heated debate, but evidently someone didn't want any freedom of speech.

 

[Foxxtrot]

Not trying to be snarky but could you expound on "if they do it right".

I knew I should have left those 5 words off.

At this point I don't see why they can go with the nanny theory because Casey has said the ZG that LE questioned is NOT the one she was talking about. So they still have that option out there that there is a nanny.

 

[Foxxtrot]

Only if their conclusions are influenced by who signs their check.

Then I guess they are all one in the same!

 

[JBean]

Well...some people complained about a discussion on another thread and someone complained and we got "shut down".

Too bad. I didn't personally think anything was going bad, some heated debate, but evidently someone didn't want any freedom of speech.

Riverbabe I shut the thread so I could review it. I will reopen it when I have a chance to go through it. if you have a complaint send me a note don;'t do it on the board. Please read the rules about freedom of speech here.

 

[Bickeny]

I knew I should have left those 5 words off.

At this point I don't see why they can go with the nanny theory because Casey has said the ZG that LE questioned is NOT the one she was talking about. So they still have that option out there that there is a nanny.

Except no one has ever met this nanny, no one has come forward with further evidence, no phone numbers lead to this nanny, no evidence points to a nanny - nothing. Heck, Casey didn't even have a job that would require her to have a nanny.

The nanny defense is pretty much a dead horse at this point.

 

[JBean]

this thread is about KC and the possibility she is innocent.

 

[Who_What_When]

I keep reading that her lies and attitude show that she is guilty however these do not prove that she is a murderer. Although most of us feel that she appears to be guilty (me included), in the court of law so far her actions only prove the following:

Child Neglect (Not reporting your daughter missing)
Obstruction of Justice (Lying & misleading authorities)
Forgery/Theft Charges (Stealing Money/Checks)

As far as the evidence that we’ve been privileged enough to see so far, most of it is circumstantial. If they are able to link hair on the bags and blanket, fingerprints on the horse, etc., these could be explained as she lived with Casey and they both lived in the house. They could create reasonable doubt on all of this including the decomposition in the car (saying she didn’t have the car and it sat at Amscot for so long) or that the “nanny” had a key to her house, her parents had access, etc. Remember they don't have to prove that anyone else did it, they just have to create reasonable doubt that it could have been someone else.

Before everyone slams me... I’M NOT SAYING THIS IS BELIEVABLE but if she has a good enough defense team they might be able to create reasonable doubt as to how these things got there. Depending on what the defense presents (that is if they choose to do so since they do not have the burden of proof), they might be able to create enough reasonable doubt.

From what I can see, unless they have her fingerprints on the duck tape or sticker and can determine the cause of death and link Casey to it (toxics found in her bones, poisoning, fractures, etc) or have more concrete evidence that we haven’t seen yet, everything they have is circumstantial evidence.

Although many have been convicted on far less circumstantial evidence it makes it a lot easier for a defense to create reasonable doubt. Unlike public opinion where we can go off of our emotions and most of the time common sense, the jury has to follow the judge’s instructions on how the law applies to a given set of facts. The jury cannot go on emotion alone and must be able to link Casey to the murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Casey already has the public against her and since she doesn't seem to have a highly skilled and likeable defense attorney who is savvy enough to create this kind of reasonable doubt, I think she will most likely be convicted. JMO

 

[MOMto5]

There is nothing about KC that is innocent. I believe she made a conscious decision to kill her daughter and was, in fact, quite pleased with her accomplishment afterwards. To add to all the excellent reasons and proof of evidence shown here already, I would like to add another fact that really cinched her guilt IMO. The "Bella Vita" tatto struck me in the beginning and I have never heard anyone able to spin it into anything other than the damning evidence that it is. "Beautiful Life"/"Life is Beautiful".... Nothing about life would be beautiful to a parent whose child had been kidnapped. The agony a parent would be facing would be anything but beautiful. It only shows me that KC was very pleased with how her life was going while she partied on without the burden of her little two year old. If KC thought life was beautiful in July when Caylee had supposedly been missing since mid June, it only leads me to believe that she wanted her gone and was responsible for her "disappearing". Now, there is absolutely nothing that anyone could say to make me believe that a mysterious kidnapper forced the mother of his/her victim to get a tat anymore than I could believe that KC was "forced" to go out, get wasted, and play musical beds. The suggestion, IMO, is simply unreasonable.

 

[anastacia129]

I realize that but that wasn't the logic we were talking about.

you are applying logic to the same individual who is accused of killing her child. If a person does something as illogical as killing her child, would she be more logical when she hid the body? If you say she is too smart to hide the body near her home, wouldn't she be smart enough not to do most of the things she has done?

 

[Who_What_When]

There is nothing about KC that is innocent. I believe she made a conscious decision to kill her daughter and was, in fact, quite pleased with her accomplishment afterwards. To add to all the excellent reasons and proof of evidence shown here already, I would like to add another fact that really cinched her guilt IMO. The "Bella Vita" tatto struck me in the beginning and I have never heard anyone able to spin it into anything other than the damning evidence that it is. "Beautiful Life"/"Life is Beautiful".... Nothing about life would be beautiful to a parent whose child had been kidnapped. The agony a parent would be facing would be anything but beautiful. It only shows me that KC was very pleased with how her life was going while she partied on without the burden of her little two year old. If KC thought life was beautiful in July when Caylee had supposedly been missing since mid June, it only leads me to believe that she wanted her gone and was responsible for her "disappearing". Now, there is absolutely nothing that anyone could say to make me believe that a mysterious kidnapper forced the mother of his/her victim to get a tat anymore than I could believe that KC was "forced" to go out, get wasted, and play musical beds. The suggestion, IMO, is simply unreasonable.

I definitely agree on the tattoo. How could any Mother feel life is beautiful when their child is missing? Sick.

 

[RR0004]

Here is who is innocent:

Her name is Caylee Marie Anthony, and she was only two years old when she was murdered, and thrown off the side of the road like nothing more than a piece of garbage.

I am committed to seeking out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what happened to Caylee, that this precious, sweet, and innocent baby is no longer with us as she should be. After carefully pouring through the evidence released by LE over the past months, I am firmly convinced that Caylee's mother killed her, that she acted alone, and that she killed Caylee because she is a sociopath whose rage at her mother, coupled with a sociopath's 'me' centered personality and enjoyment of seeing others suffer, as well as there never having been any attempts by her parents to control or contain what they recognized as her sociopathy.

Is Caylee's mother presumed innocent right now by law? Indeed. And I will defend her right to a fair trial. But this is not a court of law - WS is a court of public opinion. I have no evidence, signs, or indications whatsoever that anyone but Caylee's mother murdered this baby, and that she acted completely alone and without any outside influence whatever.

I could let my imagination run free, and I indeed have a very creative imagination. I could certainly come up with wild, unlikely, yet perfectly plausible scenarios within the realms of possibility to defend Caylee's mother. I have no reason, however, to do so, and it would be an abhorrent exercise for me to engage in. I would feel I was betraying and disrespecting the innocent one - sweet baby Caylee - who has no one in her family demanding justice for her.

Protecting and defending the innocent is of utmost importance to me. My heart, mind, soul, and conscience demand that I attempt my best, and do what I can, to protect and defend Caylee.

Please excuse me, all, for my rambling. I'll get off my soapbox now.

This is worth repeating IMHO.

 

[Who_What_When]

Lordy, I could not do it!

Well I guess it's just me and JBean... LOL Now we know why they want the trial moved... :blowkiss:

 

[RR0004]

I still like JB so I am hoping he keeps his mouth shut from here on out.

He might want to reign in his spokesperson (?) as well 'cause it isn't helping his case one bit.

 

[mes1955]

Things don't look so good, but there are actually quite a few unknowns. It wouldn't be the first time that a case took a twist. Personally, I would rather find out she is innocent.

I'm mostly curious to know how you all would feel if she WAS found innocent...if in some way she actually DID turn out to be another victim in this case?

 

[Khaki_Pants]

Heck, Casey didn't even have a job that would require her to have a nanny.

The nanny defense is pretty much a dead horse at this point.

Hey, I posted a bit ago that it is POSSIBLE that she had a job as giant hotdog, and lied about where she worked because she was embarrased. So we don't know "for sure" whether or not she needed a nanny. :crazy:

 

[CharlestonGal]

Whether she's innocent or guilty, she's going down for this. Frankly, that is nobody's doing but hers. If this was an accident, or if someone else did it, Casey has a responsibility to say so. Her silence on the whole matter from day 1 (not day 31) will be her undoing.

As for wracking my brains and twisting myself into a pretzel to figure out a way Casey could possibly be innocent or that Caylee's death was an accident, that's not my job. It's CASEY'S responsibility to explain what happened to a child under HER care, it's not my responsibility to figure out a defense for her. She hasn't lifted a finger to explain any of it and if that results in LWOP for her, that's on her.

 

[jujube]

Casey is innocent until proven guilty. Until she is found guilty, I think she is innocent.

 

[anastacia129]

Things don't look so good, but there are actually quite a few unknowns. It wouldn't be the first time that a case took a twist. Personally, I would rather find out she is innocent.

I'm mostly curious to know how you all would feel if she WAS found innocent...if in some way she actually DID turn out to be another victim in this case?

If information comes out that completely exonerates kc (not just doubt) I will shave my head.