Is Casey Anthony Possibly Innocent?

[bananarama]

I don't recall that and I'm not sure they could know.

Didn't the ME state it in her autopsy report?

 

[PAXIMUS]

So does a death by drowning accident which was later staged to be a kidnap murder rise to the level of a DP case?

No, I dont think it does but I dont know Florida law as well as I do other states.

 

[Tuffy]

Didn't the ME state it in her autopsy report?

Yes.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-14/news/os-casey-anthony-spitz-autopsy-20110314_1_duct-tape-casey-anthony-second-autopsy

Spitz particularly takes issue with Garavaglia's saying: "Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair. This duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible [jaw] in place."

 

[SheRa]

Hi all,

I don't post very often, but (like many of us here) I've been following this case since the start, and this thread's surprising title intrigued me.

When the "tot mom" saga first came to light, I initially believed there was no way Casey could have done this alone. Casey, like many young people in their early 20s, seems incapable of doing anything by herself. The constant texting, phone calls, overnight visits, partying, etc...I know most young people are the same way, but Casey in particular seems to need constant contact with others. (Then I thought, that's probably why she DID do it; her child was forcing her to be different from others, to not fit in the group, etc.)

Anyway, I had a few doubts at the beginning because I couldn't imagine a socially-minded twentysomething being able to hatch a plan (even a shortsighted, spontaneous plan) on her own. Once Casey's sociopathy came to light, though, it became clear that that's how she operates: keeping things to herself in order to advance her parasitic, hedonistic personal life agenda.

That being said, I think the cumulative evidence in this case, including Casey's behavior before, during, and after the 31 days, leaves zero room for reasonable doubt. Theoretical doubt, perhaps -- for example, theoretically, Caylee could have been abducted by aliens. Theoretically, she could have been "zapped" into the future by some yet-unknown life force. Theoretically, the dingo ate Casey's baby, maybe. However, even though these things (as well as more mundane explanations, i.e. "George did it" or "it was a complete accident"") *may* have happened, they are overwhelmingly not likely given what we know.

I know this echoes what many of you have stated already, so please excuse my redundancy. Basically I think that yes, there certainly is doubt...but, like the players in this whole case, none of it (given what we know) is reasonable.

 

[TiaM]

In answer to the title of this thread:

No.

No way.

 

[Atlanta PI]

This whole thread seems a bit hinkey. However, I will say that I do believe it's possible that Caylee was in the pool and ICA walked away while texting or on the phone. Whatever - it needed to be reported immediately. I think one scenario could have been that she was "drugged" and then put into the swimming pool. All the hard work would have been done. Duct tape added to make it look like a kidnapping as many of you have said. <modsnip> It seems strange to me.

 

[angeleleven]

My answer to the title of this thread:

No.

No way....also

 

[kjpaw]

Beyond a reasonable doubt I believe that ICA was there when Caylee sadly died, was responsible for Caylee's death, put Caylee's body in her trunk, and put Caylee's body in the woods. I have struggled with the idea that the DT will successfully present that it was an accident...but I always come back to the search on the computer for chloroform and the high levels of chloroform in the trunk. Even though the ME determined the duct tape was placed prior to decomposition, she didn't determine it was placed prior to death, so I don't feel 100% sure that was placed prior to death, although the only other explanations are to contain fluids (please forgive me for even mentioning this) OR in an attempt to create a kidnapping story. I believe it was placed prior to death and am very interested in how the SA presents this evidence and if I will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial. Without the chloroform search AND high levels of chloroform in the trunk, personally I still believe ICA killed Caylee either through accidental overdose of chloroform (which is Murder 1) or purposeful overdose of chloroform, but I think the accident story is more believable if they don't have those two pieces of evidence. I think the only chance ICA has is to get on the stand and say it was an accident, which I believe there is a very very very small chance that is true only because anything is possible...but whether the jury will believe her (particularly after all the lies and all the time that has passed with her sitting in jail) is a complete gamble and I believe they will not. As for the 31 days...I think her increased drinking, drug use, and crying during the night that TL described will be used by the DT to say those are indicators she was traumatized by the accidental death. I think that's rubbish, but I do believe they could twist it that way. Bottom line, I believe ICA is responsible for Caylee's death and I think the SA will prove it...the accident theory along with ICA testifying is the wild card in my mind for the jury. I appreciate this thread and it opening up the discussion, but I do not believe it's possible that ICA is not responsible for Caylee's death. I need a lot more from the other side to believe it wasn't murder 1 and A LOT more from the other side to even begin to consider that ICA wasn't responsible, didn't put the body in her trunk, and didn't put the body in the woods.

 

[katydid23]

Many and I think MOST are simple things, a bar fight gone wrong, domestic abuse, etc. I can only go on what I know but with the exception of Robert Manwill, I believe all of our local cases have had witnesses.

Even in cases where there aren't any witnesses, we usually have someone who can come forward and say someone was threatening the victim, or someone had a problem with the victim. A timeline of the victims last movements can be traced and LE can find someone who saw or heard something.. anything...

That makes it easy.

Which is what causes the problems for this case..

Sweet Caylee was just gone.. we can prove what her mom was doing and where her mom was.. but does that prove that she was involved?

Some people need to see something definitive.. (echoes of the OJ case going through my head)

There IS a timeline in this case. The state will lay it out quite accurately. And with evidence such as cell phone pings, text messages, videos, surveillance cameras, witness testimony, and her own statements.

We can look at June 16th as a very important target in the timeline. She, by her own admission and by her fathers and mothers witness testimony, left the home with Caylee in early afternoon. George said goodbye then he went to work. Caseys cell ping map shows she was still in the area and came back to the empty house after George left for work. There is evidence of her logging onto the home computer at that time for verification. Caylee was probably right there with her, but no witnesses to that fact, although one friend said they thought they heard her talking in the background during a phone call.

Okay, later that afternoon she goes to meet up with her new boyfriend, WIHOUT HER CHILD. In her initial statement to LE she stated that she dropped her off at her nanny's apt. We now know there was no nanny.
SO WHERE WAS THE BABY WHEN CASEY WENT ON HER DATE ON THE EVENING OF THE !6th? According to this timeline, Caylee is never seen or heard on the phone by anyone after early afternoon of the 16th/

THAT IS AN ACCURATE TIMELINE. It is not a wishy washy or nebulous question. Who was watching Caylee when she went on her date ? Her cell pings show she was either at home or very close to home up until she went to her boyfriends. Both her parents were at work and her brother was out of town. She has never answered this question truthfully or successfully.

ETA: OJ was a national hero. A well respected athlete and a wealthy celebrity. Everyone loved and admired him.

Casey, not so much. She is a proven pathological liar, a proven thief, and a convicted felon, who showed ZERO remorse for her dead child. I do not think we can compare her trial to OJ's for that reason. imoo

 

[tweety933]

The only two things that prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey is guilty.....and if the state doesn't prove these, imo they are toast. 1.) Casey did not talk with Caylee on the telephone (lied to LE) on July 15/16, whichever day she said. 2.) The Forensic Botonist testifies that the remains were disposed of before July 15/16.

 

[tankgirl]

Any doubt that Casey Anthony murdered her 2-year-old daughter is highly unreasonable.

imo.

 

[believe09]

OK, if your vote is guilty, are there lesser charges that fit the same crime...and maybe fit it better?

I get why the state is going full boat. I do. They will probably get what they are seeking-but should they? I can see second degree-in fact I almost prefer it because it will (I hope) make the out lay regarding inevitable appeals less expensive for Orange County perhaps? But also I think she deserves LWOP. I waffle on the first degree murder charge...I am not seeing the premeditation I associate with others who have received the DP in the state. JMO.

 

[dodie20]

I guess I'm waiting to see what the state has before making up my mind completely, but as of right now, the only thing I'm convinced of, is that she acted innappropriately after her daughter was missing. There seems to be overwelming evidence, but I'm willing to wait and see how the defense responds...I'm not convinced there was any premeditation. maybe, maybe not. MOO.

 

[GiantPickle]

So does a death by drowning accident which was later staged to be a kidnap murder rise to the level of a DP case?

No. But she's not saying that is what happened. She needs to tell the truth if this is it and save her own arse.

 

[ziggy]

This is where I stand also, right now she is innocent and can the state prove she is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? I dont think they can and I have all the evidence that one is able to see without being part of the case itself.

Hey Pax! I think it's going to go down just like Scott Peterson. There was little evidence really, but his actions convicted him. The jury will bring their own sensibilities with them and making up lies about where her daughter was, partying, getting a memorable tat. etc. will not make sense to them no matter how many people say her daddy or her brother abused her etc. The puzzle pieces will eventually fit ust like they did to the Peterson jury...some people are just so selfish and sociopathic they are capable of murder.

So with the title of this thread asking is it possible she is innocent? Ah hell no. Is it possible she could be acquitted? Always (but that's "not guilty" and not the same as innocent).

 

[momshrink]

After reading all documents and viewing interviews in this case, I see only guilt on the part of ICA. Have you read all of the documents and viewed all of the interviews??? And if she were innocent, why hasn't she told the REAL story instead of sitting in jail???

 

[nursebeeme]

no way.

 

[gitana1]

I think the duct tape is actually a very good point of discussion.


Most of you seem to be saying this:

Because the same brand of duct tape that was wrapped around the childs mouth was found in the Anthony home Casey must have wrapped the duct tape around the child's mouth.

But that isnt what the duct tape says ACCORDING TO THE LAW. According to the law, as a fair and impartial juror, this is what the duct tape says:

Caylee had duct tape wrapped around her mouth, that same brand of duct tape was also found in the Anthony home. THAT is ALL the duct tape says, for you to take the giant LEAP and says because it was found in the Anthony home Casey MUST have used to to wrap her daughters mouth. Those are the kind of leaps bad jurors make and the very kind of leaps that get innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit. Any number of people could be using that same duct tape within the Anthony home, there is NO EVIDENCE that PROVES it was Casey who used it as such, to say there is, is a leap, a guess, a gut feeling, all of which do not belong in the jury deliberation room.

Respectfully, no one is saying that it must be casey who put the duct tape on Caylee merely because the same rare brand was found in the home. They are saying it must have been casey who did it because of all the other factors that point to her, and away from other people who lived in or had access to her parent's house, which have been repeated endlessly, such as it was her car, the one she abandoned that reeked of death, she hid the fact of Caylee being missing for 31 days while the family became increasingly anxious trying to find her, she lied outrageously to the cops to prevent them from finding Caylee, etc. It's a means, motive and opportunity kind of analysis when it come to who dunnit.

Please forgive me, but I get bothered when I see people in various cases pick apart one point or one piece of evidence and thereby try to dismantle a case and show that it is a weak one. As people have said ad nauseum, that is not how the law works, that is not how cases are considered. Each case is a puzzle where any one piece might not prove the case but together, they do.

If you're saying that you want the duct tape evidence excluded I have to disagree. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Juries misinterpreting circumstantial evidence is no different than a Jury that is presented bad physical evidence or bad jury instructions. As for the rest, I agree, there should not be an automatic presumption that because I skull found with duct tape on it, that the duct tape was automatically the cause of death and that the defendant placed the duct tape on the victim.

I need to reiterate something here that many misunderstand and that I myself have forgotten at times: Circumstantial evidence is usually all there is. Physical evidence like fingerprints, DNA, blood spatter, ballistics, that IS circumstantial evidence. The opposite of circumstantial evidence is direct evidence and direct evidence means someone was caught committing the crime, with the murder weapon in their hand as they did it, kind of thing. We usually do not see many cases like that tried because for obvious reasons, they are usually pled out.

People get confused because we hear the phrase, "Oh, that's purely circumstantial" and thus believe that circumstantial evidence is somehow not as good as direct evidence or that if the case has no direct evidence, there must be reasonable doubt. Neither concept is an accurate concept under the laws of our country.

Again, most cases have nothing but circumstantial evidence and such evidence is perfectly fine in using to find someone is guilty of a crime. Also, it is not logical or rational, IMO, nor is it how cases are to be analyzed by a jury, to pick apart each piece of evidence and examine such in a vacuum. Each piece should be examined as part of the total picture, or in context. Otherwise, nothing would ever make sense.

It would be like saying, "Wait, using butter to make cheese sauce does not make sense because you can't make cheese sauce with just butter. " Maybe I could come up with a better analogy but it drives me batty when people insist on doing that. It is not reasonable.

I would also like to address a statement made by our friend PAXIMUS. You keep saying that well, yes, casey did "stupid" things but being stupid does not make one guilty. That's true, but these don't look like mere "stupid" things she did. casey is not unintelligent. And with respect, it frustrates me to hear people downplay behavior that led seasoned investigators and prosecutors to realize that casey murdered her child, as merely the stupid antics of some young person who does not know better.

Further, innocent people are not usually found guilty because they repeatedly did "stupid" things. Instead, it is usually either because they are minorities and some people are prejudiced and have an easy time believing a minority could commit a crime, or due to faulty eye witness testimony or extreme interrogations tactics leading to a false confession on the part of a young person, a person of limited intelligence or a person who is about to lose their mind. (None of those facts are at play here).

Finally, we did have a casey is innocent thread on here before that was limited to discussion about her innocence and not for those arguing for her guilt. So, PAXIMUS, you have every right to make such a thread and determine what the topic will be limited to.

The only reason I am veering from your intended topic is because I noticed
that people are arguing the guilt position and that the you are engaging in such discussion. So please forgive me if I am off topic.

P.S., I respect the view points of everyone who has a position on this case, including PAXIMUS and anyone else who has questions or an opinion that is not in the majority. In fact, I find it courageous and admirable when someone can voice a point of view that most do not hold, regardless of popular opinion, as long as such view is not an immoral or racist one! It speaks to a strength of character that I find very valuable and it adds to the debate and helps all of hone our critical thinking skills. So, thank you PAXIMUS!!!!

 

[Shadow5618]

I have really thought about this "maybe it was an accident" theory - whether it was in the pool or an accidental overdose of chloroform. I've thought about staging a kidnapping by putting the duct tape on after death. But I can't get past the home computer searches for neck breaking, and how to turn household chemicals into weapons, and how to make chloroform. I think this murder was pre-meditated for a really long time, and she was just looking for the time to carry it out. IF and it's a big IF it was an accident, Casey considered it the biggest stroke of "luck" she ever had. I also think that staging the cover up demonstrates consciousness of guilt. Remember, you can't believe a word this girl says, so you have to rely on the facts to paint the picture, and the facts all put together are a pretty graphic statement of what happened to sweet Caylee. I really think she's going down for this one.

 

[GiantPickle]

I need to know what searches were made before and after those "neck breaking" "chloroform" etc hits. Neck breaking could be tied to a news story and chloroform tied to a movie etc. The defense needs to bring up what else was searched for to show that it was part of something else....if they can't, well that thats then isn't it? heh