July 19, 2011

"Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word 'chloroform' were based on inaccurate data...."

"... a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday."
The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5.
So... presumably, if there had been a guilty verdict, Anthony would be getting a new trial.

125 comments:

traditionalguy said...

The shock and awe...let me sit down and deal with the shock...Has a Prosecution team cheated every way possible to win at all costs?

Damned good jury!

ndspinelli said...

A prosecutors office takes its cue from the chief. If the chief plays fast and loose w/ facts and exculpatory evidence then the staff will also. Although, you can have an honorable chief w/ outlaw staff.

chickenlittle said...

Is the them the rules?

In this case, looking the first time has more weight than each of the subsequent number of times she looked. So that would have to be considered too.

I mean who looks even once?

If the prosecutors knowingly multiplied the act is another story of course.

chickenlittle said...

So perhaps Casy Anthony should go on a highly publicized tour to promote prosecutorial abuses!

Perhaps Althouse could get her a paid gig at UW Law!

Triangle Man said...

A surprising number of people search Google for chloroform.

27183 said...

You're the law professor and I am a total ignoramus.

Would she automatically get a new trial, or would she have to appeal.

Based on what happened, what are the chances she could lose that appeal?

TWM said...

Eh, in the end the bitch still murdered her child. May her life be hell until she dies and actually goes to hell.

Scott M said...

I'm still not getting the hate aimed at this woman, regardless of how shitty a person she is. Far more interesting will be the "where is she now" in five years. Porn is my guess.

Chip S. said...

Is there some reason he couldn't have given this information to the defense lawyers?

Anyway, at least we now know that Casey A. was a much quicker study than we had thought.

William said...

I think Casey Anthony in some way participated in her child's death. Nonetheless, I don't see how anyone can claim that it was a well thought out and pre meditated murder......The malice against her stems not just from her lies and the deliberate concealment of the body, but in the way she carried on after her child died. Who mourns the death of a child by joining in a wet t-shirt contest?....Well, perhaps the weirdness of her behavior was her way of mourning and pulling down the temple upon her head. Thanatos and eros are joined at the hip. It's bizarre and irrational but soldiers masturbate in foxholes. Perhaps the whole sad spectacle of Casey is one of idiosyncratic grief and guilt......And perhaps I'm full of shit. We tend to thank that jowly rich men are guilty and pretty young women are innocent. This prejudice is so basic and so widespread that it almost might be said to be more of an instinct than a prejudice. At any rate, it is more comfortable to live in a world where Casey Anthony is addled rather than evil.

Scott M said...

Would a civil lawsuit against the software guy have any standing since she was acquitted? I understand she's a bit short on funds.

Chip S. said...

@ScottM--It's all about teh pron with you, eh?

G Joubert said...

In my experience prosecutors, even more often than defense lawyers, some of the most loathsome, morally twisted, side-winding, double-dealing, four-flushing snakes in the pit. They are capable of anything, because to them the ends justify the means. They tell themselves that they have to be that way to be effective, to win, because they're up against evil and it's all really okay in the end because they are the forces of good.

Ann Althouse said...

"Would a civil lawsuit against the software guy have any standing since she was acquitted?"

Read the article. He reported the mistake and the prosecutor continued to use the mistaken information.

Pogo said...

I am sure there are innocent explanations for a young mother to search for 'chloroform' on the internet (just once!) and then have her daughter disappear and blame it on a non-existent nanny who took her her while she was at her nonexistent job, and then the girl turns up dead near her house, with chloroform in the car trunk.

Totally innocent.

Scott M said...

t's all about teh pron with you, eh?

Today, apparently. Which is odd as my wife served up a great big piece of the good cake last night.

WV - epineene

LOL!!!!

Anne said...

Anyone who still believes that she is guilty and wishes retribution on her should simply get over it already. You were NOT on the jury, you were NOT in the courtroom, you have NOT seen all the evidence.
In our country we have a presumption of innocence. That means that we as the public do NOT get to convict her, period. And once the jury found her not guilty, we need to move on.
This is so similar to the whole Prosser/Bradley incident. We cannot begin to presume guilt simply from what has been presented to us by the media. This is why Tammy Baldwin has set a dangerous precedent, she is an elected official, she should be the first to call for the presumption of innocence. But NO, she is just as loudly calling for blood in this case as is the casual viewer of the Casey Anthony trial.
SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on you!

Ann Althouse said...

"Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police. Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense."

How is that not prosecutorial misconduct?

virgil xenophon said...

After the Duke Lacrosse case why would ANYONE who previously might not have believed that D.As often get "target fixation" continue to do so? This news of evidence suppression, if true, can hardly be a surprise to ANYONE..D.A.s are all about winning and getting RE-ELECTED--FIRST AND FOREMOST. They are ALL hard-wired Law & Order "true believers" who are self-selected to a position that, although it technically entails a search for "Truth & Justice," in reality becomes tunnel-visioned focus on putting away the "bad guys"--and a DA would frankly be bad at his job if they thought otherwise. But that doesn't mean they are Angels..

ndspinelli said...

It is misconduct, clear and simple. Honor is in short supply both in our general culture, but even more so in the legal profession.

Triangle Man said...

How is that not prosecutorial misconduct?

It sounds like it is, and prosecutors should be held accountable even when the jury does the right thing for the defendant.

James said...

Well, let's just ask Cindy Anthony how many times she searched for "chloroform" because according to her testimony she was the one who searched.

Scott M said...

How is that not prosecutorial misconduct?

To this layman, it sounds like disbarment level misconduct. So...can she sue the prosecutor?

Pogo said...

"How is that not prosecutorial misconduct?"

I don't know the field, but does anyone ever get successfully censured or convicted for prosecutorial misconduct?

Lincolntf said...

When I was a kid we had a Quart bottle of chloroform in our house once. My father had brought it home from the lab to pour down a particularly pernicious hornet hole right next to our front porch. We had a get-together upcoming that would bring multiple highly bee-allergic kids to the yard, so I guess he wanted to be thorough. Anyway, after he used it (we never saw another bee anywhere near the porch) he lent the bottle to a neighbor for the same purpose. I was at home alone (about ten years old) when the guy came over to return it. I had to debate with him for 5 minutes over whether or not he could safely leave it with me. He eventually did, but I had to agree that I'd put it right there in the back hall and not touch it, no matter what.
When he was gone I opened it and sniffed the inside of the cap. Oooof, I can still smell it if I think hard enough.

TWM said...

"I'm still not getting the hate aimed at this woman, regardless of how shitty a person she is."


A shitty person is a person who parks in a handicap spot when they aren't entitled to. Murdering your own child is a tad worse than that.

Pogo said...

"You were NOT on the jury, you were NOT in the courtroom, you have NOT seen all the evidence."

And OJ did not kill Nicole Simpson.

G Joubert said...

...does anyone ever get successfully censured or convicted for prosecutorial misconduct?

Mike Nifong. In the south no less.

Pogo said...

Oh, yeah!

So what'd Nifong get for what he did?

Disbarred?

traditionalguy said...

G Joubert ...You are correct that prosecutors believe that the guilty need to be convicted at all costs.

To prosecutors, all arrested people are guilty of something.

Remember the TV talking heads after this verdict of not guilty tried to blame it on "overcharging" the defendant.

Prosecutors always overcharge the defendant.

But at trial the slimey, sleazy defense attorneys are the ones put into the position of seeking justice while the prosecutors huff and puff that since the defendant is involved in some way and that is enough to convict them of a crime since they are probably the type that is guilty of something during their bad lives.

Without Defense Attorneys and righteous Jurors we would all be in grave danger all of the time.

The Tampa area is a rare shipping and industrial area rather than a tourist area of Florida. I suspect that the jurors from Tampa looked for a no nonsense prosecution, and all they got was the emotional crap that works in the Disneland area of Florida where the Prosecution lives.

MadisonMan said...

And OJ did not kill Nicole Simpson.

The truer statement is that he was not convicted of killing her.

Ralph L said...

That means that we as the public do NOT get to convict her, period. And once the jury found her not guilty, we need to move on
Total BS. Juries are supposed to presume people innocent til proven otherwise--we the public can make up our own minds, and we often have more information (and more sense) than they do.

I deliberately avoided all Caylee, Tot Mom, and esp. Nancy Grace when ever they appeared. Now I hear she didn't tell anyone her child was missing for 30 days--that's enough for me to convict her of something evil.

Ann Althouse said...

Remember the death penalty was sought. The prosecution was trying to kill her.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


Oh, yeah!

So what'd Nifong get for what he did?

Disbarred


Yeah, meaning no work as a LAWYER in the future….also he lost his PENSION, so no MONEY in the future, either…so now Mike Nifong can ask, “Do you want fires with that?” Pretty harsh if you ask me.

For TWM, I ask…”What evidence do you have that Caylee was MURDERED, and that Casey did it?” Please note the word EVIDENCE….we KNOW Hitler ordered the Holocaust, but we couldn’t PROVE it, because there is NO WRITTEN evidence that he did so…..sure we can pin lots of things on Himmler and Heydrich, or Mengele, possibly even Demjanjuk, but not Hitler. “Knowing” is NOT “proving.” What PROOF have you that the child was murdered? Or who murdered, or man-slaughtered, or negligently homocided Caylee?

Scott M said...

The truer statement is that he was not convicted of killing her.

He was found liable for it though, wasn't he?

TWM said...

"He was found liable for it though, wasn't he?"

As I imagine Casey Anthony would be if someone sues her for it.

Pogo said...

"Yeah, meaning no work as a LAWYER in the future…Pretty harsh if you ask me"

Not nearly harsh enough.
He should have been imprisoned.

TWM said...

…”What evidence do you have that Caylee was MURDERED, and that Casey did it?” Please note the word EVIDENCE….we KNOW Hitler ordered the Holocaust, but we couldn’t PROVE it, because there is NO WRITTEN evidence that he did so…..sure we can pin lots of things on Himmler and Heydrich, or Mengele, possibly even Demjanjuk, but not Hitler. “Knowing” is NOT “proving.” What PROOF have you that the child was murdered? Or who murdered, or man-slaughtered, or negligently homocided Caylee?

I don't have to prove it. I just know she did. Just like I knew OJ murdered two people.

It's my OPINION. Which I am entitled to and you can ignore if you wish.

BTW, your Hitler analogy sucks and you need to chill a bit.

Again, just my opinion.

Ralph L said...

Unlike most other misbehaving Democrats, Nifong was dethroned by his own party. NC AG Roy Cooper (D) likes to get his name before the public (I couldn't name his predecessors to save my life), but he actually did something, maybe later than he should have.

Did the Anthony jury have other levels of murder available?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


As I imagine Casey Anthony would be if someone sues her for it


Possibly, but there’s STILL a paucity of evidence…WHAT killed Caylee? Did Mama poison her? Strangle her? Did she drown in a pool? Did she fall off a bike? Who “killed” her? Who moved her?

All we have is a dead child….and a smelly trunk…and a worthless parent…as any number of scenarios can emerge from that scant catalogue, it will be difficult to demonstrate that anyone theory is better than any other theory….you can claim anything from Mama, as Premeditated Murder…to Grand-Pa in an accidental drowning….

This isn’t just the “CSI Effect” the State had little evidence of what actually happened and without that it’s hard to say if the child was murdered, or just drowned, or just died….and who did or didn’t do what before, during, or after the fact. Again, we KNOW Casey was culpable, somehow, but proving the exact nature of that culpability, aye there’s the rub.

MayBee said...

Yes, this is horrible behavior on the part of the prosecutor. The defense argued much the same thing- there weren't 84 searches.

A new trial would have meant the prosecution would have had to say there was only 1 search, when Cindy Anthony wasn't home. But they would have been prepared for Baez's sex abuse claims this time. That opening statement was only going to work once.

MayBee said...

Possibly, but there’s STILL a paucity of evidence…WHAT killed Caylee? Did Mama poison her? Strangle her? Did she drown in a pool? Did she fall off a bike?

You do not have to know if Mama strangled her or poisoned her to convict her of murder.

MayBee said...

Ralph L- they had manslaughter and child abuse.

That they didn't even convict Casey of child abuse (when her attorneys argue she didn't call an ambulance when found floating in the pool) shows, in my opinion, they were just not going to convict her.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That means that we as the public do NOT get to convict her, period.

I am guessing that you have never heard of the Court of Public Opinion?

We DO get to convict her in that court.

Original Mike said...

Crap software rears it's ugly head again? It is absolutely terrifying that we depend so much, for so many crucial things like power generation and transmission, air traffic control, etc., on software that, apparently, is invalidateable (that's a word, right?).

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


Did the Anthony jury have other levels of murder available


They had, IIRC, several options Murder 1, with Capital Punishment, down to several grades of much lesser murder/manslaughter….But even that undermines the case, IMO, Casey could be guilty of any number of things…that being the case, then she could also be innocent of any of a number of things… If you can’t know what happened, how can you find her guilty of anything, beyond lying to the Police?

CONCEIVABLY, Caylee could have died of heat stroke or just a bad heart and all that happened was that Mom or someone moved her and lied about it….In this case, it would seem, that having many options did not increase the jury’s “happiness” or propensity to find her guilty of any crime DIRECTLY related to Caylee’s death. It would have been different if the forensic evidence had found bullet holes in the skull or ribs….hard to argue that THAT was ‘accidental” and you could narrow your range of options from Murder 1, to some form of Murder or Accidental Homicide…but simply having a dead child, proves very little about the nature of the crime.

Ralph L said...

Her lawyers used the Menendez defense? And it worked again? People are so easily deranged by incest--I mean the jury.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well, let's just ask Cindy Anthony how many times she searched for "chloroform" because according to her testimony she was the one who searched

Good point.

So, which is it. ONE search. Or Cindy Anthony committing perjury by making up numerous searches to protect her daughter?

Prosecutorial misconduct....and/or Perjury

Original Mike said...

I read a persuasive analysis once that the problem with the Star Wars defense plan wasn't the hardware, which was a tractable problem, but the humongous program required to run it. Imagine the Congressional investigation into the shooting down of a Space Shuttle when it finds the following lines of code in Star Wars OS V3.0:

IF Russian missile, GOTO standby.
IF Space Shuttle, GOTO fire.

Shanna said...

I mean who looks even once?
I look up all kinds of weird stuff online, doesn’t everybody? (not to mention all the places you end up on accident) You see something odd and you decide you want more information. Why do you think wikapedia has so many entries?

Michael said...

"That means that we as the public do NOT get to convict her, period."

This lefty sentiment is at the very heart of the collapse of our society. Yes, we do have the right to judge her regardless of the outcome of the trial. Yes, we can call her what she is. Yes, we can shun her. Yes, we can judge her. Yes, we can make life miserable for her. We can make it clear to our neighbors and our children that people who act like this are scum. We can make it plain that getting a tattoo is permanently identifying ourselves as a tramp. We can, and should, judge people. Often harshly.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


u do not have to know if Mama strangled her or poisoned her to convict her of murder


But, from my extensive TV watching of Law and Order, I understand “Murder” requires INTENT…tell me without knowing HOW the child died, how can the State demonstrate the “intent” to kill the Caylee? IF Caylee drowned in a pool, how is that “Murder?” So, sans eye witnesses or some idea of how the child died, how does one begin to determine the crime committed?

Had we found the decomposed body, with a skull fracture, closely approximating the baseball bat in Casey’s bedroom, and that bat having traces of blood, of Caylee’s type, then we might conclude that Mama took the bat to Caylee….but we don’t have that. All we had we the badly decomposed body that didn’t say a lot about HOW the child came to be dead.

G Joubert said...

Something else in my experience, most prosecutors, be they elected DAs or deputy DAs, are political liberals. As are criminal defense attorneys, but that's to be largely expected. Conservative lawyers migrate towards the civil side, doing commercial law, corporate law, tax law, trusts and estates, whatever, but generally stay away from criminal law on either side.

Pogo said...

It is entirely possible that the little girl died accidentally and mom covered it up.

Mom seemed to do everything possible to look like she was a sociopathic liar, indifferent to her daughter's death, capable of using other people like so many blocks of wood, i.e. like a person capable of killing without remorse.

Hence I don't believe she is innocent. The jury didn't think there was sufficient proof. Fine. Society can still shun her the way OJ was shunned.

Just like Dominique Dunne's killer.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


Society can still shun her the way OJ was shunned


We are in “violent agreement” on that….

MayBee said...

tell me without knowing HOW the child died, how can the State demonstrate the “intent” to kill the Caylee? IF Caylee drowned in a pool, how is that “Murder?” So, sans eye witnesses or some idea of how the child died, how does one begin to determine the crime committed?

You put all the pieces together- the web search, the past behavior of 'disappearing' the child via non-existent nanny, the past behavior of pretending there is a job so other people will have to watch the child she doesn't want to be burdened with, the fact that she was the last person seen with the child, that she admitted her car stunk like a dead animal, that she abandoned her car and disappeared from her home, that an ambulance was never called about an accident at the house, that Caylee was found wrapped in items that had been at the Anthony home, that she made up a cover story about the girl being kidnapped.

Now, the jury didn't put it all together and declare her guilty. However, it is perfectly proper to do so. If you think you need a bat or an eyewitness, you are wrong.

G Joubert said...

Pogo @9:26

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying it can and does sometimes happen that miscreant prosecutors are found out and sanctioned. But I agree with your larger point that most often they aren't. The problem is the concept of overreaching prosecutors has been going on for a long time, maybe forever. That's one reason why we have a presumption of innocence as a constraint.

Richard Dolan said...

"presumably, if there had been a guilty verdict, Anthony would be getting a new trial."

There was a guilty verdict, just not on the top charges. But whether the prosecution's obvious Brady violation here will get her a new trial is far from clear.

If the 'chloroform' evidence had any relevance to the misdemeanor charges for which she was convicted, the Brady violation will probably be enough to require a new trial even on that. (In an extreme case, intentional prosecutorial misconduct can bar retrial altogether.) If the 'chloroform' evidence was not relevant to those charges and the evidence was overwhelming showing that she made false statements as charged, then probably not.

The next step in the criminal case is up to the defense -- whether to make a new trial motion. But prosecutorial misconduct of this sort is unlikely to just get swept under the rug, which is what the spokesman for the Sheriff's office quoted in the article seems to be hoping for. The last time something this bad happened in a high profile case (the Gov't's prosecution of Sen. Stevens comes to mind), it had bad (and deserved) consequences for the prosecutor responsible for the misconduct as well as the prosecution's case.

Shanna said...

Her lawyers used the Menendez defense? And it worked again? People are so easily deranged by incest--I mean the jury.

I don’t think it worked, I think not having cause of death is what made the jury go with not guilty.

Society can still shun her the way OJ was shunned.

That is perfectly acceptable to me. She’s still a bit nuts/shitty parent regardless. That just doesn’t make her a murderer. There are plenty of shitty parents.

I do have a question about the chloroform thing. Did the prosecution have a list of 84 times that she supposedly searched it, and then pulled one of those times and said that the mother wasn’t there? If so, was it one of the times that actually happened or one of the computer error times?

edutcher said...

First, what TWM said - all of it.

Second, the difference between one hit in a loop and 84 is quite a difference. Who tested this guy's stuff? More to the point, DID he test it?

At all?

Everyplace I ever programmed, up front analysis and design and thorough testing were givens, you didn't even question it.

He, apparently, did.

Ann Althouse said...

Remember the death penalty was sought. The prosecution was trying to kill her.

No, the prosecution wanted to execute her, for a particularly heinous crime which the law allowed was sufficient for the death penalty.

You make it sound as if they were trying to murder her the way she murdered (my $.02) her daughter.

G Joubert said...

It's a little ironic, in that if there had been a conviction in this case, then overturned because of this wrongdoing, it likely would have enhanced the prosecution's case in retrial. Retrials usually go better for the prosecution than the initial trial because they force the prosecution to sharpen their case.

MayBee said...

I don’t think it worked, I think not having cause of death is what made the jury go with not guilty.

The cause of death bothered the jury so much because they thought there was something weird about George Anthony.
They thought there was something weird about George Anthony because Jose Baez started the trial saying he used to put his penis in Casey's mouth.

I suspect what was weird about George Anthony was he realized his wife and daughter were dysfunctional lunatics.

Almost Ali said...

The charge of "84" targeted searches was absurd on its face. I'd like to hear from the IT guy who was on the jury.

You may recall - when interest in the trial was virtually zero in this high forum - that I pointed out the prosecution's "expert" claimed these were "Firefox" searches - which meant that the Anthony computer has been [secretly] equipped with a custom Firefox function/program, which is still completely and totally unavailable to the general public.

Also of interest is that the software's designer chose not to inform the defense concerning the flawed search result - as if the whole trial was about a traffic citation.

Then there's the matter of the flawed program itself, how useful it was to the state, but ONLY in its flawed condition.

Top it off with the state's designated champion and professional clown Jeff Ashton.

James said...

Mike Nifong served one day in jail for criminal comtempt of court.

Read K.C. Johnson's excellent blog: Durham-in-Wonderland

ken in sc said...

In real life, you are innocent if you didn't do it. You are guilty if you did. Only in court does it have to be proven.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


You put all the pieces together- the web search, the past behavior of 'disappearing' the child via non-existent nanny, the past behavior of pretending there is a job so other people will have to watch the child she doesn't want to be burdened with, the fact that she was the last person seen with the child, that she admitted her car stunk like a dead animal, that she abandoned her car and disappeared from her home, that an ambulance was never called about an accident at the house, that Caylee was found wrapped in items that had been at the Anthony home, that she made up a cover story about the girl being kidnapped


And from all this you can SHOW that:
1) Mama Bludgeoned, poisoned, stabbed Caylee, with or without malice of forethought;
2) Caylee drowned, or fell off her bike; or
3) Caylee simply had a heart condition and died?
Because UNLESS there’s some evidence of how the child came to be dead, all we can say is Casey was a Bad Mother and that she lied to Police. There’s NO evidence that demonstrates that a CRIME occurred or who committed it.

Lori G said...

So...did Baez not bring this up in his closing argument? I specifically remember him discussing mistakes regarding the number of searches. Wouldn't this indicate that the defense DID indeed know about this? Would that not further indicate that the prosecution either let the defense know, or knew that the defense had this knowledge? Don't be so quick to hang LDB...

MayBee said...

And from all this you can SHOW that:
1) Mama Bludgeoned, poisoned, stabbed Caylee, with or without malice of forethought;
2) Caylee drowned, or fell off her bike; or
3) Caylee simply had a heart condition and died?


There is nothing in the world that makes you or the jury consider them all equally likely or unlikely- or reasonable.

James said...

Good point.

So, which is it. ONE search. Or Cindy Anthony committing perjury by making up numerous searches to protect her daughter?

Prosecutorial misconduct....and/or Perjury




Exactly. If the programming is incorrect as now claimed; how did Cindy Anthony admit to making numerous searches for chloroform?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthonys-mother-charged-perjury/story?id=13921276

"The surprise testimony by Casey Anthony's mother that she was the one who repeatedly looked up "chloroform" on the Internet has raised questions by experts about whether she could now be vulnerable to charges of perjury.

Cindy Anthony's claims under oath Thursday clearly blindsided prosecutors who had claimed in their opening statement that Casey Anthony had looked up "chloroform" and "how to make chloroform" 84 times as well as other incriminating Internet searches such as "neck breaking."

It is a key piece of prosecutors' circumstantial case because they say that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, and then suffocated her with duct tape over her nose and mouth. "

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

There is nothing in the world that makes you or the jury consider them all equally likely or unlikely- or reasonable


It’s that pesky concept called, “Evidence”…until you demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ONE scenario is more likely or reasonable, then any are equally reasonable, to include NOT GUILTY. The State has the burden of collapsing the “wave front” of probable outcomes to one….not say, “anything from Premeditated Murder, to Child Abuse” is a reasonable conclusion…sorry if this doesn’t fly with you. Had we some EVIDENCE of how or who did something we could debate intent and the like, but without any of that, it’s hard to say any crime occurred at all.

MayBee said...

It’s that pesky concept called, “Evidence”…until you demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ONE scenario is more likely or reasonable, then any are equally reasonable, to include NOT GUILTY.

Exactly! And the jury is supposed to look at all the evidence- all of it- to determine if one scenario is more likely and the others are reasonably not likely.



Had we some EVIDENCE of how or who did something we could debate intent and the like, but without any of that, it’s hard to say any crime occurred at all.

That's wrong. You don't need evidence of how before you debate intent or whether a crime occurred.

Again, this jury either didn't put it all together, or did and found the case lacking.

But the idea that you need one piece before you evaluate the other pieces is not how it is supposed to work.

Joe said...

Incidentally, one problem with using browser searches as evidence is that autocomplete often comes up with wildly different words than you intended and you may not have noticed until you got the search results. (However, sometimes I think, "how interesting" and click a link anyway.)

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

That's wrong. You don't need evidence of how before you debate intent or whether a crime occurred


Really, so you’re saying that a decomposed body, with bullet holes, does not suggest “foul play” to a greater extent than one without? Or that had the body been found sooner, with traces of this Devil Chloroform in the lungs, and say a bottle of this Elixir of Death in the house we might not conclude that Mama had a hand in her death?

But absent any idea of HOW the child died, who may or may not have killed her, or allowed her to die, and who covered up the crime, can we say with any certainty that a CRIME OCCURRED AT ALL? It’s not just ONE PIECE, it’s a lack of many pieces…how and when did the child die?

This is NOT LIKE the OJ trial…the Prosecution there, did a bad job, but they had DNA evidence linking OJ to the crime. The Defense simply muddied the waters and the Prosecution spent too much time watching Court TV to see if their suits or hair-dos were playing well, and not enough time hammering home that two people died a violent death, most likely at the hands of OJ. Instead, the Anthony Trial has the Prosecution saying, “Something” killed this child, and we believe that Mama did the killing…oh and she looked up chloroform; so that proves it was pre-meditated. Geeez, had she also looked up “Terrain-Following Radar” would that have been evidence that she chloroformed the child and then loaded her into an advanced ground attack aircraft and dumped the body?

Michael said...

So, if the child of a single mom is drowned in the bathtub and the single mom dismembers the kid and puts the pieces down the disposal she is good to go because the cause of death cannot be proven?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

So, if the child of a single mom is drowned in the bathtub and the single mom dismembers the kid and puts the pieces down the disposal she is good to go because the cause of death cannot be proven


You write from the Third Person Omniscient Perspective, Mom DID drown, Mom DID put the pieces down the disposal…

Try this Mom; reports child missing…child is never found….you know First Person PoV…has a crime occurred?

That’s all YOU know, Yhwh knows what REALLY happened, but you don’t.

MayBee said...

Really, so you’re saying that a decomposed body, with bullet holes, does not suggest “foul play” to a greater extent than one without? Or that had the body been found sooner, with traces of this Devil Chloroform in the lungs, and say a bottle of this Elixir of Death in the house we might not conclude that Mama had a hand in her death?

It seems that you and the jury would be perfectly willing to entertain the idea that George Anthony found Caylee after she accidentally opened a bottle of chloroform while Casey was doing something else.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

It seems that you and the jury would be perfectly willing to entertain the idea that George Anthony found Caylee after she accidentally opened a bottle of chloroform while Casey was doing something else


I’d also entertain the idea that Aliens killed the child. Or that Seminole Indians killed the child. I’d settle on one as more likely than the other, on the basis of the State providing some EVIDENCE that Swamp Dog or ET did the deed…BTW, for all this talk of searching for Chloroform, because I don’t keep up with these things, did they FIND any chloroform at the house or evidence Mama had purchased it? I ask not sarcastically, all I’ve heard is that she or someone “searched” for the chloroform on-line…OK, beyond that was ACTUAL chloroform ever adduced in the case?

SunnyJ said...

The evidence was refuted in the trial by defense witness which said it was only 1 time. Jury heard all of that and why there wree differing reports and dates on the reports.

Michael said...

Joe: Thanks. Good to go for the single Mom. Blueprint for murder in the modern age. Easier than I thought.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Thanks. Good to go for the single Mom. Blueprint for murder in the modern age. Easier than I thought


Whatever, but your example was FLAWED…all you know is that the child is gone…now if you can show that ONLY Mom had access to child from the last time she was seen….that the disposal has Blood in it, and more than likely DNA matching the child’s well you can conclude the body went down the disposal.

BUT if all you have is a missing child, well you can THINK whatever you want to, but you won’t get a conviction, I hope.

Did the Prosecution have ANY evidence of that nature…conclusively demonstrating HOW or when the child died? Any witnesses or evidence that the Child was transported in her car, dead? UNLESS they did, it’s hard to conclude anything more than “something” happened, and that Mama lied to the Police.

Further upstream someone pointed out the JURY heard all the evidence, we did not…

MayBee said...

Michael- a lot of people whose kids die accidental deaths chop them up and put them in the garbage disposal. Even if a lot of people don't, you never know how someone is going to respond to grief.
Besides, you can't prove it was the mother who was operating the garbage disposal that day.

You need eyewitnesses, apparently. Because putting together all the circumstantial evidence is too burdensome a task.

chickenlittle said...

I look up all kinds of weird stuff online, doesn’t everybody? (not to mention all the places you end up on accident) You see something odd and you decide you want more information. Why do you think wikapedia has so many entries?

Well, I have written dozens of blogposts on chemistry and never once googled "chloroform." On the otherhand I once had to euthanize a pet rat and, having easy access to a chem lab at the time, my method of choice was chloroform.

So there you go.

MayBee said...

Did the Prosecution have ANY evidence of that nature…conclusively demonstrating HOW or when the child died? Any witnesses or evidence that the Child was transported in her car, dead?

Yes.

The jury heard all of the evidence, but it was also available to the general public. The jury did not hear more than the general public.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

You need eyewitnesses, apparently. Because putting together all the circumstantial evidence is too burdensome a task


This “evidence” it was, someone said her trunk smelled bad and that they found a child’s hair in it? So your trunk is sterile? And the smell, it wasn’t chicken gone bad? They have an witness who saw the Mom put a bundle in the trunk? The body showed evidence of trauma? Just whip this “evidence” out that is so conclusive of guilt of???And now take your pick: Murder 1 (What premeditation was there or financial gain), 2nd Degree Murder (Someone INTENDED to kill Caylee, or should have known that his/her acts would produce death-and we know this HOW), Manslaughter (So the Child died accidently, and we know this HOW), Child Abuse (and what was the abuse)?

Again a précis of the “evidence” is all I ask. How did Caylee die? Who was present? WHEN did she die? And then seriously, or more seriously, did Mama or Grand-parents order or possess Chloroform? An Internet search proves, what? Given what you’ve provided, I could conclude any number of people and things happened…some of them involve Casey, some don’t….

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The jury heard all of the evidence, but it was also available to the general public. The jury did not hear more than the general public.

The jury also heard much less than the general public. They were sent out of the courtroom quite often. It was interesting how much MORE of the actual trial we the public were able to see than the jury was.

I never expected that they would find for first degree murder. However, I was surprised that they didn't at least find Anthony guilty on the child endangerment or negligence charges.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Did the Prosecution have ANY evidence of that nature…conclusively demonstrating HOW or when the child died? Any witnesses or evidence that the Child was transported in her car, dead?

Yes


Really so how and when did Caylee die? And the evidence of transport, was a hair? And that she was dead, the smell? That’s it? A smelly trunk with a child’s hair in it?

So when I discovered an large Igloo Cooler at my relatives house and I opened it and was nearly knocked down by the stink, I should have concluded that someone had been moldering in the cooler? Not that a pound or so of chicken or trout had been left in there? And had I found a hair from a niece in that cooler I would have been justified in concluding that this person had murdered my niece and transported her in the cooler?

I believe I read, on-line, someone claimed it was the smell of human decomp…REALLY, and this person had extensive death camp experience or was a long-time combat veteran?

MayBee said...

Again a précis of the “evidence” is all I ask.

If you don't know the evidence presented, what are your arguments based on?

There is a lot of information available. If you are interested, you can read all about it.

Sigivald said...

Pogo: Sure. Like reading a book that mentions it and wondering about it.

A single search and a single visit to one website (offering historical information) is not exactly incriminating.

It's not even circumstantially incriminating, unless there was evidence of the actual use of chloroform. (Which would be far more incriminating in itself!)

Of course, that's exactly why (if we wish to assume the worst, which seems supportable) the Prosecution didn't bother to pass along the report.

Scott M said...

Forget all that nonsense, Joe. We have a new threat besides EMPs and zombies. Apes.

(extended clip from Rise is out)

Sigivald said...

(Also, it just occurred to me - thanks to this trial and this news report, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people will now have a "chloroform" search in their browser histories.

If anyone they know happens to die mysteriously, this will be evidence that they murdered them, because who searches for chloroform at all?)

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

I never expected that they would find for first degree murder. However, I was surprised that they didn't at least find Anthony guilty on the child endangerment or negligence charges.


Again without being able to determine HOW the child died, how can you convict of anything? Negligence or endangerment would imply an accidental death, that Mama ought to have been able to prevent. OK, what was the accident, and how was she negligent? Did the child die on a bike, in a pool, fall down the stairs, eat rat poison? Can we show that mama was high, drunk, out-of-town, pole-dancing when the child died?

Yeah it sucks, when you’re pretty sure someone did something, but “pretty sure” is not the standard….

As to the Jury not being there, well, guess what? What you saw, that the jury didn’t, was INADMISSIBLE…and therefore, no you don’t know more than the jury, you just heard more than the jury. The jury can and should only consider the evidence presented…and just because you saw something the jury didn’t doesn’t actually mean that much.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

If you don't know the evidence presented, what are your arguments based on?


That so far, you can’t demonstrate that Caylee died of ANYTHING in particular, on any particular day, and that therefore absent that, you can show that Mama was the ONLY reasonable suspect, that the evidence of Mama transporting a rotting Caylee is pretty weak…and that no one has shown ANY evidence that beyond an internet search that Chloroform was involved at all! How’s that for starters? That, and I keep asking seriously, beyond an internet search was chloroform actually adduced in the case? Because, as I understand it, the search was evidence of motive or premeditation…

In the OJ case, we have OJ’s blood…and a 1 in 40,000,000,000 billion chance it was someone else’s and that OJ had motive…

Which is a bit more substance than you have presented here. Hey you don’t say the Pathologists said, “Something like a boat oar caved in Caylee’s head” and that Casey was an avid rower, and that a boat oar was found with Caylee’s blood on it, or that the matched set of boat oars has one oar missing, or that someone saw Casey load a bundle into the trunk of her car, or that blood and lymph were found in the trunk…..in short a set of real physical, if circumstantial things, that would tend to demonstrate that murder had occurred and that Casey was guilty of murder….

I laugh at “CSI” evidence…but the Prosecution doesn’t even seem to have provided much evidence at all, beyond the fact that Caylee died and that mom’s statements were not true…

MayBee said...

That, and I keep asking seriously, beyond an internet search was chloroform actually adduced in the case?

Why don't you read about the evidence presented and find out?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Why don't you read about the evidence presented and find out


Because I don’t care enough to bother to…everyone just seems to “Know” well just show this “knowledge” it sure should be easy to say, “Yes, there was a purchase of Chloroform. It was billed to Casey Anthony. The merchant says it was shipped on so-and so date. Of course, Casey denied ordering it and denied receiving it.”

See easy….instead you keep on insisting that the circumstantial evidence, which you seem hesitant to even summarize, was CONCLUSIVE, or ought to have been.

Bottom-Line: if it was so open and shut, you really ought to be able to say, what killed the child, when she died, and what made anyone think she was transported by the mother in a trunk, and be able to refute an Casey Anthony Trial Illiterate, such as myself, with ease….so far I keep hearing how “obvious” it all was. And since the Jury didn’t think it was so obvious, to quote Iniago Montoya, “I doan t’ink that word means what you t’ink it means.”

chickenlittle said...

And since the Jury didn’t think it was so obvious, to quote Iniago Montoya, “I doan t’ink that word means what you t’ink it means.”

I think "obviousness" in a legal sense has different meanings, but I don't think it's ever meant to be equated with extant facts as you are doing. Rather, it is used to bridge gaps. If the bridges overreach, doubt remains and the law "errs" on the side of doubt.

You sound like: "No smoking gun? Next case please."

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

You sound like: "No smoking gun? Next case please


Dood/doodette show me a gun, smoking or otherwise….all we have CONCLUSIVELY, is a dead child and a lying mother…we may believe much, but can prove far less. No cause of death, is there…a hazy time of death….the “errors” begin to build up from there…

Usama Bin Laden was never indicted for 9/11. Why, there wasn’t enough evidence to go to trial. Knowing is not proving…I don’t see much proof being thrown out, here.

Cedarford said...

G Joubert said...
In my experience prosecutors, even more often than defense lawyers, some of the most loathsome, morally twisted, side-winding, double-dealing, four-flushing snakes in the pit. They are capable of anything, because to them the ends justify the means.
=============
The American system is a perversion of justice. Somehow, the logic went, the Wise Jury and the adversarial system that frees both prosecutors and defense to lie to advance their position would ultimately craft "justice".

Crap. No nation has emulated the US legal system, no nation has positioned its lawyers to get a cut of nearly every societal transaction like the US has. Other nations are more straightforward. YOu bribe the cop or the official rather than pay more for lawyers. Only Israel has more lawyers per capita than the US.

Nor as we well understand in these days of open accessible information...is "The jury alone is in possession of all the facts". Au contraire. We see juries selected based on how ignorant they are of events or details...then at trial, less aware of the facts than much of the public watching the trial.

Rob said...

It could have been worse. Imagine how dishonorably the prosecutors would have acted if Ms. Anthony had been a member of the Duke lacrosse team.

Scott M said...

@C4

There's never going to be a perfect system. I can say that I've lived in shitholes where bribing officials is common place for the most mundane transactions. It's awful and the little guy has zero chance to prevail.

Cedarford said...

Observations:

1. It seems the software expert should have contacted the judges staff in a capital case....and altered the court that the prosecution presented false testimony before deliberations. But that would have jeopardized the experts bread and butter income from prosecutors hiring him --

2. Althouse uses the standard "prosecutorial misconduct" term. IMO, that is too mild. Akin to charging the Anthony woman with "maternal misconduct" or a gang that abducts and rapes two women with "gang misconduct".

IMO, that innocuous term should be replaced with "alleged willful perversion of justice by an officer of the court".

Lawyers protect their own. None of those DA jerks will see a day in jail for what they did. It is a miracle that Mike Niphong had to serve a day in jail for what he did.

(And yes, I think the Anthony woman is utter scum, as are her parents.)

Michael said...

Joe: I think you watch too many cop shows and way way too many daytime talk shows. You can be on my jury anytime, that much I know.

David said...

There are a few prosecutors who should be facing disbarment and prosecution.

This was crucial evidence in their case.

Judges have to start dismissing cases based on misconduct, and referring prosecutors for action.

It's a nationwide scandal, and some aspiring law prof can probably make a big reputation by taking up the issue.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

Joe: I think you watch too many cop shows and way way too many daytime talk shows. You can be on my jury anytime, that much I know


Just answer, anyone, the simple question, “Did anyone ever find any evidence that ANYONE in the Casey family ordered or used or possessed ‘Chloroform?’” Just tell me how the child died. Just tell me the evidence that “proves” a dead child was in the trunk. That’s all…by proves I don’t need Yhwh’s Testimony, something more than some hair and a bad smell…how about hair, blood, and lymph? How did she die? Bullets say one thing, drowning, possibly, another….

Basically you guyz seem to throw out Dead Caylee, bad mom, Casey, and did we mention she did a “wet T-shirt contest whilst the child was missing” and allow you to pick form a range of choices, murder, manslaughter, or child abuse…*WOW* It’s a hardly a wonder she didn’t get the Death penalty with all that…

Your “evidence” seems to be ASSUMPTIONS, based on the fact that Casey was a bad parent…so of course the bad parent killed the kid…or let the kid die…or something. And then when the jury doesn’t convict, as YOU THINK THEY SHOULD, they are in the wrong…OK, but it isn’t all that clear.

Revenant said...

I sometimes wonder if there are any DA offices and/or police departments in America that aren't corrupt.

MayBee said...

if it was so open and shut, you really ought to be able to say, what killed the child, when she died, and what made anyone think she was transported by the mother in a trunk, and be able to refute an Casey Anthony Trial Illiterate, such as myself, with ease….so far I keep hearing how “obvious” it all was.

From who do you keep hearing it was obvious? I think obviousness is the standard you (and the jury) were looking for.
I think the evidence was there, and compelling when knitted together. But not obvious.

Cedarford said...

Joe the Crypto-Jew concerned more with process than truth and the facts says:

"As to the Jury not being there, well, guess what? What you saw, that the jury didn’t, was INADMISSIBLE…and therefore, no you don’t know more than the jury, you just heard more than the jury."

===================
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Yes, a person with strong interest in a case usually does know more than a person on a jury in that particular case because they are free to educate themselves...ask questions, look up information, hear testimony the jury is barred from hearing, take extensive notes.

Your INADMISSABILTY argument is essentially that jurors are too stupid to weigh all the information so all facts and knowledge must be 1st screened and censored by lawyers.

In countries like France or Japan, a jury may ask questions, through the judge. They are free to give feedback that they failed to understand critical testimony as it was presented to them.

Imagine that a plane crashed and a team was assembled to find the truth of the event, but was procedurally barred from much of the information, following leads up by the team..asking questions directly.

Bryan C said...

"You make it sound as if they were trying to murder her the way she murdered (my $.02) her daughter."

A prosecutor deliberately withholds evidence from a jury in order to mislead them into sentencing someone to death.

That may actually be worse than what Casey Anthony was accused of doing. Prosecutors who do this sort of thing should be permanently disbarred. We have plenty of other lawyers ready to take their place.

Oligonicella said...

Joe --

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)

You sound like: "No smoking gun? Next case please.



"Dood/doodette show me a gun, smoking or otherwise…"

Dood/doodette, a simple "Yes, that's what I believe." would have sufficed.

Revenant said...

I think the evidence was there, and compelling when knitted together.

Now that we know the prosecution was willing to knowingly present fraudulent evidence to both the jury and the press, I have to ask -- what evidence?

chickenlittle said...

Dood/doodette show me a gun, smoking or otherwise….all we have CONCLUSIVELY, is a dead child and a lying mother…we may believe much, but can prove far less.

So the recipe for getting away with murder is to get rid of the gun, smoking or otherwise.

Why hasn't that been obvious since Cain and Abel?

SunnyJ said...

WTF? The prosecution presented the search and it was supported by one expert and refuted by defense expert...WTF is all this nonsense about prosecutorial misconduct? Someone didn't do their homework here.

andinista said...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I've been thinking for some time now, that it's time to remove sovereign immunity from the police and the law. They should be subject, like any other organization, to the tort and liability laws. They're some guys we hired to do a dirty job, and gave them some powers. If they screw up, they personally and organizationally are liable, the same as all the rest of us.

The only sovereign power should be reserved for a special court system that is used for lawsuits against the police, prosecutor, and law system.

And you can't work in the regular legal system until you first spend time putting away and fining all the police, prosecutors, and judges.

The people will be more careful who they vote for, after their picks for Sheriff, Judges, and Legislators, result in municipal and state bankruptcy due to jackpot justice.

The State Bars and OPR's and such are weak and trembling reeds, too conflicted and not powerful enough to do the dirty job that has to be done. Lawyers and police cannot police themselves.

Scott M said...

Why hasn't that been obvious since Cain and Abel?

In all fairness, there was no way to prevent full disclosure to the prosecutor in that case. He knew what the defense was going to say before he had even picked up the rock.

Revenant said...

I mean who looks even once?

Quite a few of the people in this thread.

chickenlittle said...

revenant said: I mean who looks even once?

Quite a few of the people in this thread.


Of course they do now, revenant. But who, on this thread, did so before hearing about the Casey case?

I mean, that's why evidentiary date stamps and chronologies are so important.

Don't try to be cutesy-you're much smarter than that. :)

Revenant said...

Of course they do now, revenant. But who, on this thread, did so before hearing about the Casey case?

Me.

Honestly, "zomg they looked at something slightly suspicious online, execute them" is not a good case.

Ralph L said...

A neighbor of ours in the 70's was Commonwealth's Attorney for the People's Republic of Alexandria (VA) while his older son was in prison and his teenage son was the local drug dealer, who eventually went to prison for stabbing someone. Mr. Cowhig (his unfortunate name may have been the source of the family's troubles) was caught trading leniency for blowjobs from defendants' girlfriends/wives. I believe he got a short sentence.

Since real estate prices had driven most of the poor whites from the city, it surprises me now that the subject of race never came up when the scandal exploded. Presumably, most of the defendants were black. The paternalistic city council provided them with sorry public housing and kept shabby old apt complexes from going condo.

chickenlittle said...

Revenant wrote: me

Well rev, if you were under arrest on suspicion of foul play where chloroform was found, and had done your single computer search in a time frame consistent the alleged foul play, I'd believe the two were connected if I were a juror.
____________
Of course, Casey could have lied again and said she just gave Icelandic Candy to Caylee.

Chloroform is actually anaesthetic--there's nothing "tasteful" about it. :)

Scott M said...

It's very easy for me to assume that her father, you know, the guy she accused of molesting her, didn't do anything because that's me projecting. I have two daughters and would never in a million, billion years lay an inappropriate hand on them.

Given that, what an awful thing to hate your own daughter.

Revenant said...

Well rev, if you were under arrest on suspicion of foul play where chloroform was found, and had done your single computer search in a time frame consistent the alleged foul play, I'd believe the two were connected if I were a juror.

I assume "within a time frame consistent" means "at any point prior to the alleged crime", since the "suspicious" search took place months before the alleged crime did.

Anyway, if the prosecution had felt a single search was damning evidence they wouldn't have felt the need to lie to the jury and claim she visited the page 84 times. Since they did, we have to wonder how true the "we found chloroform in the trunk" claim was, too.

The jury made the right call -- it was obvious then, and this just makes it more so.

Almost Ali said...

Innocence Project: 272 exonerated, and counting.

Which must really enrage Nancy Grace, Jeff Ashton, Mike Nifong, and countless other prosecutors.

Almost Ali said...

Another new wrinkle: Casey Anthony judge Belvin Perry may now be implicated as a co-conspirator. Not to mention that Judge Perry still hasn't cleared up the small matter of witness tampering re Dr Rodriguez vs. the DoD.

rhhardin said...

Software bugs, finally something to make the case interesting.

An experienced programmer knows where bugs are likely to come up and pretty much gets rid of them all.

It's new bugs that get you, and also make the field worthwhile.

Almost Ali said...

What, no challenges?

traditionalguy said...

Mentioning a computer autofill feature is a good analogy of what the accused defendants face in courtrooms.

The autofill in the human brain is relied upon by prosecutors.

The jurors are expected to want to blame someone for the crime.

So prpsecutors present evidence of a crime and present evidence that the defendant was connected in someway to the events...then the autofill feature wins a guilty verdict from Circumstantial Evidence.

The circumstances will make it seem reasonable to autofill in guilt when it is so unlikely that another explanation has any reasoned probability of being true.

But this is weirdo filled Florida where there is no trouble suspecting grandfathers of being serial child molesters.

And poor George just looked mean and deceptive.

So the autofill feature had trouble here. The Prosecutors knew that and tried to bolster their case by focusing on hatred of Casey for having been a wild youth when she should have been crying like a loving mother in mourning does.

Damn good jury.