For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[claudicici]

Removing the pool would have caused a lot of suspicion,IF the A's were really trying to hide a drowning accident,wouldn't it?

 

[1Chump]

the type of father than was doing his best to be honest about what happened even if that truth pointed back to his own daughter. using the logic above, would it be preferred that he lied about things that pointed to Casey....would that make him a better Father?

I NEVER said he should lie. Actually I stated he should answer questions. George however did more than just answer questions. On July 24, 2008, he went to LE to volunteer information. On the stand, he voluntarily told the juror that he now believed his daughter harmed his granddaughter. His daughter was facing the death penalty and he volunteered his opinion.

Most parents have an extremely hard time being witnesses against their child even if they believe their child should be held responsible.

 

[jrb0124]

....none of what KC and her DT put forward explains why KC would take the blame for GA, sit in jail for 3+ years, never say a word about a drowning, and put herself through a murder trial with a potential death penalty...if there was nothing suspicious or nothing to hide over an accidental drowning. KC would never, ever have done this....EVER!

Here is what I think could have happened, ..but since its speculation don't hold me to factual reference

Assume the drowning story, then:

*Assume there is an element to the drowning which could point to culpable negligence
*GA does in fact tell Casey "you'll go to jail for the rest of your life for child neglect"
*Casey believes it (not hard to fathom).
*GA feels he too will be blamed for this Cindy/LE/media or that the death would prompt discovery of something else, for whatever reason GA decides that its in his best interest to cover-up and Casey is afraid to go to jail for the rest of her life.
*GA agrees to keep quiet, tells Casey its her responsibility to properly bury Caylee
*Casey buries Caylee in the back yard, tells GA when asked what she did
*GA becomes furious tells her to get Caylee's body off the property
*Casey removes Caylee tells GA she will go bury her somewhere else
*Casey gets cold feet - leaves body in trunk, escapes (mentally)
*Car starts to smell - Casey puts Caylee where she is found
*Casey tells GA that she buried Caylee in a cemetary and marked the spot
*GA goes there and cannot find the spot, starts to suspect Casey just dumped the body

fast forward to December 2008.

*By this point State had ALREADY (before body found) put the death penalty on the table, in an effort to get Casey to point them to the body
*Casey has told JB the story - he calculates she'll never get convicted of murder 1
*After body found w/duct tape, State will accept plea for manslaughter, nothing less (regardless of what story she tells)
*JB/Casey decide to roll the dice in court vs plea to manslaughter
*Casey sits in jail for another 2.5 years in an effort to get off with time served (checks, lying to LE which JB tells her will be 3 years anyhow) rather than accept 10 year sentence in a plea deal on top of that.

 

[WillChgo]

correct,

PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.

Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, 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.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

Conflicts in the evidence and its interpretation are also pointed out by expert testimony:

*Manner of Death is homicide vs Manner of Death is undetermined.
*High levels of chloroform vs insinificant levels.
*Air samples indicative of decomposition vs air samples indicative of gasoline. *84 chloroform searches vs 84 myspace accesses.
*Duct tape over the nose and mouth pre-mortem vs impossible to know where and when the duct tape was placed.
*Insect indication of decomposition vs lacking insect indication of decomp.
*no DNA on duct tape unaccounted for vs DNA on duct tape unaccounted for
*skull was found as it was left vs skull was manipulated

All of this creates a conflict in the evidence or interpretation of it, any one of the elements could create reasonable doubt if not proven beyond it by the State - however most if not all created reasonable doubt. It's not even close really, which is why they only needed 11 hours.

Conflict in the evidence does not mean conflict in a single piece of evidence or conflict in the opinions of experts. Your argument above is exactly Baez's argument for reasonable doubt. The problem with the argument is that it fails to put all the pieces together.

You can throw away the chloroform and the searches and much of the forensics and there is still a huge amount of evidence for guilt that cannot be explained away:

1. Casey's failure to report the missing child until CA called 911. (Evidence of Casey's involvement in her death).
2. Casey's behavior after Caylee's death (Evidence that Casey was better off with Caylee dead).
3. Multiple witness, including a trained dog, of smell of decomposing body in Casey's trunk (this is strong evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, tying a homicide to Casey-felony murder or at the very least criminally negligent manslaugther).
4. 3 6-8 inches pieces of duct tape, from the Anthony home, tied to Caylee's hair or near her skull, one holding the mandible in place, with an additional piece farther away. (The four pieces are not consistent with the DT story of the duct tape being used to hold the remains together in a bag, or that RK somehow did this. The number, size, and placement of the duct tape is strong evidence of at least felony murder, if not premeditated murder. That no DNA from Casey, Caylee, or GA was found on the duct tape does not contradict this evidence. Even if the skull had been moved, the source of the duct tape, the intact mandible, suggests that it would be widely speculatively to assume that the tape was move to simulate a murder).

IMO, 3 and 4 are evidence of Caylee having been murdered, beyond a reasonable doubt.

4 indicates that the murderer was someone in the Anthony family, beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMO, 1, 2, and 3 indicate that that someone was Casey Anthony, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Well, I am sorry she did not handle herself the way she should have, I am sure that finding her precious dead child dead in the pool didn't mentally effect her at all. I bet Casey is the first person ever on the planet to act out. Also, one night out at fusion, really isn't an accurate representation of a chronic party girl. Had the state had 31 nights of partying, that could have been different, at least that would support the fact she killed her child to party.

1 night at Fusion???
She was at Blockbuster that day renting murder movies with her latest boyfriend.

If your child dies in a pool, you not only fail to call 911, but you can rent murder movies that day and sleep with your boyfriend???
Enter a hot body contest.
Talk about your child as if she is still alive.

Ride around with her in your trunk until she starts smelling, try to blame the smell on dead animals, dump her in the woods and keep on partying???

She is a horrible person.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Removing the pool would have caused a lot of suspicion,IF the A's were really trying to hide a drowning accident,wouldn't it?

So the A's were trying to hide a drowning accident??
So they knew all along during those 31 days that Caylee was dead???

So the 911 call made by CA was a great acting job???

Sorry, I'm not buying that.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Conflict in the evidence does not mean conflict in a single piece of evidence or conflict in the opinions of experts. Your argument above is exactly Baez's argument for reasonable doubt. The problem with the argument is that it fails to put all the pieces together.

You can throw away the chloroform and the searches and much of the forensics and there is still a huge amount of evidence for guilt that cannot be explained away:

1. Casey's failure to report the missing child until CA called 911. (Evidence of Casey's involvement in her death).
2. Casey's behavior after Caylee's death (Evidence that Casey was better off with Caylee dead).
3. Multiple witness, including a trained dog, of smell of decomposing body in Casey's trunk (this is strong evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, tying a homicide to Casey-felony murder or at the very least criminally negligent manslaugther).
4. 3 6-8 inches pieces of duct tape, from the Anthony home, tied to Caylee's hair or near her skull, one holding the mandible in place, with an additional piece farther away. (The four pieces are not consistent with the DT story of the duct tape being used to hold the remains together in a bag, or that RK somehow did this. The number, size, and placement of the duct tape is strong evidence of at least felony murder, if not premeditated murder. That no DNA from Casey, Caylee, or GA was found on the duct tape does not contradict this evidence. Even if the skull had been moved, the source of the duct tape, the intact mandible, suggests that it would be widely speculatively to assume that the tape was move to simulate a murder).

IMO, 3 and 4 are evidence of Caylee having been murdered, beyond a reasonable doubt.

4 indicates that the murderer was someone in the Anthony family, beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMO, 1, 2, and 3 indicate that that someone was Casey Anthony, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Great post!

 

[jrb0124]

Because there was a pool in the yard.

That's it.

You said HHJP would disagree with me that there is no evidence of a drowning. Where is it???

There is circumstantial evidence that Caylee both would: testimony about her running to the pool at the Apt, and could: pics w/door & climbing ladder, get into a pool without supervision.

There is no indication from the autopsy that she didn't drown and that cause of death was conclusively something else.

Given the circumstances and circumstaial evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn (Judge Perry) that Caylee drowned.

 

[Chablis]

1 night at Fusion???
She was at Blockbuster that day renting murder movies with her latest boyfriend.

Now this was the boyfriend who also said that Casey had woken up in the middle of the night a few times panicked or had a nightmare within these 31 days right?

Ok, so a night out at Fusion and Blockbuster. Well, the jury agreed that this was not enough evidence to prove she killed her child to party.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There is circumstantial evidence that Caylee both would: testimony about her running to the pool at the Apt, and could: pics w/door & climbing ladder, get into a pool without supervision.

There is no indication from the autopsy that she didn't drown and that cause of death was conclusively something else.

Given the circumstances and circumstaial evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn (Judge Perry) that Caylee drowned.

There is no indication form the autopsy that she did or didn't drown or any cause because she rotted for 6 months, first in the trunk then in the woods.
There was nothing but scattered bones left of this child.

There is no evidence that she drowned.

There is evidence that her mouth and nose was covered with duct tape from the Anthony home.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Now this was the boyfriend who also said that Casey had woken up in the middle of the night a few times panicked or had a nightmare within these 31 days right?

Ok, so a night out at Fusion and Blockbuster. Well, the jury agreed that this was not enough evidence to prove she killed her child to party.

If I killed my child I would wake up in a panicked state as well I'm sure.

It was more than 1 night at Fusion and a trip to blockbuster.

She had "31" days of ignoring the fact her child was rotting.

She disgusts me.

 

[jrb0124]

You can throw away the chloroform and the searches and much of the forensics and there is still a huge amount of evidence for guilt that cannot be explained away:

1. Casey's failure to report the missing child until CA called 911. (Evidence of Casey's involvement in her death).
2. Casey's behavior after Caylee's death (Evidence that Casey was better off with Caylee dead).
3. Multiple witness, including a trained dog, of smell of decomposing body in Casey's trunk (this is strong evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, tying a homicide to Casey-felony murder or at the very least criminally negligent manslaugther).
4. 3 6-8 inches pieces of duct tape, from the Anthony home, tied to Caylee's hair or near her skull, one holding the mandible in place, with an additional piece farther away. (The four pieces are not consistent with the DT story of the duct tape being used to hold the remains together in a bag, or that RK somehow did this. The number, size, and placement of the duct tape is strong evidence of at least felony murder, if not premeditated murder. That no DNA from Casey, Caylee, or GA was found on the duct tape does not contradict this evidence. Even if the skull had been moved, the source of the duct tape, the intact mandible, suggests that it would be widely speculatively to assume that the tape was move to simulate a murder).

IMO, 3 and 4 are evidence of Caylee having been murdered, beyond a reasonable doubt.

4 indicates that the murderer was someone in the Anthony family, beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMO, 1, 2, and 3 indicate that that someone was Casey Anthony, beyond a reasonable doubt.

(1) does nothing to prove homicide. Failure to report an accidental death is not evidence of homicide.

(2) Casey's behavior was testified to as "not abnormal" for her age by the grief expert...remember the magical thinking stuff?

(3) a body in the trunk does not prove manner of death was homicide.

(4) there is reasonable doubt as to when and where the duct tape was applied through expert testimony.

Nothing you listed above IMO proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt - even when considered together.

I posted a possible (not beyond a reasonable doubt) scenario above which takes 1-3 into account.

 

[Chablis]

If I killed my child I would wake up in a panicked state as well I'm sure.

It was more than 1 night at Fusion and a trip to blockbuster.

She had "31" days of ignoring the fact her child was rotting.

She disgusts me.

Well, setting aside the hate, I understand your frustrations.

But I would be more mad at the State of Florida. I would be mad there wasn't 31 nights of her partying and showing just how evil she really was. They had weak evidence and counted on the response from the people who were watching NG as an accurate representation to make them think it was a slam dunk case.

When it went to the jury, JVM was interviewing some lady who knew in her gut that the jury would come back that night, the 1 st night because they were so sick of Casey and just wanted to be done with her. Just so bizarre, but I blame the media. I really honestly cant say one computer search months prior and chloroform levels from a aired out car is enough to say this chick murdered her child, I just cant take the leap, but I understand how others can.

 

[jrb0124]

There is evidence that her mouth and nose was covered with duct tape from the Anthony home.

That is the State's interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

 

[natsound]

That is the State's interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

I suppose the mouth and nose part is an interpretation, but where the tape came from is not an interpretation.

 

[jrb0124]

There is no indication form the autopsy that she did or didn't drown or any cause because she rotted for 6 months, first in the trunk then in the woods.
There was nothing but scattered bones left of this child.

There is no evidence that she drowned.

There is evidence that her mouth and nose was covered with duct tape from the Anthony home.

The bottom line here is that contending that the jury had no right to draw a reasonable inference that Caylee drowned, is directly contradicted by Judge Perry's ruling on the matter.

 

[jrb0124]

I suppose the mouth and nose part is an interpretation, but where the tape came from is not an interpretation.

Agreed. I won't argue with that.

 

[cmsg2002]

Given the unreported/accidental death of a child, why would the specific location and wrapping of the body indicate the manner of death?

Once this jury conceded that homicide was not proven (could have been an accident) - no need to go beyond that.

that would have only pertained to 1st degree charges.....of course there was a need to go beyond that to the other charges.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

That is the State's interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

The jaw bone does not stay attached to the skull without being held there by something after it becomes skeletal.

The duct tape was there.

The duct tape came from the Anthony home.

If the duct tape (that was stuck in Caylee's hair) did not hold the jaw bone in place, what did?

 

[Chablis]

The jaw bone does not stay attached to the skull without being held there by something after it becomes skeletal.

The duct tape was there.

The duct tape came from the Anthony home.

If the duct tape (that was stuck in Caylee's hair) did not hold the jaw bone in place, what did?

Logically, the State was saying animals were spewing everything everywhere. What duct tape can sit on rotting flesh, and then tighten against the skull? Its just not logically possible, it really isn't.

jmo