Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
No, he hasn't, really.He's sentenced her to 4 1-year terms to be served consecutively (not four years ... 1 year); and considering time served and time off for good behavior, she'll be out next week.It's curious that all the media want us to believe she's going to NOW serve four years in jail.
I am glad I did not follow this case, so I don't have to be outraged (or not) at the verdict.
@nevadabobI think you have confused consecutive for concurrent.
Finally, something we can argue about!I've been putting off my 20 mile bike ride just so that I can argue about something.You've got to start posting on Old Fart Time, Althouse. I'm up by 5:30!Anyhoo! Ann Coulter pretty much says it all. CASEY ANTHONY: SINGLE MOM OF THE YEAR!
Moral of the story: Never, ever talk to the police. Ever. Ever. Ever.The are NEVER trying to help you and are ALWAYS trying to hurt you.
And I hate how FOX exploits the celebrity justice angle. Something sick about the way they cover it, like a fetish.
It is an appropriate sentance to what she was convicted of.
I think you have confused consecutive for concurrent.Well, I've seen two conflicting media reports, so I retract my earlier suggestion. I'm not sure now exactly what the sentence that was actually given was.
Having worked in the litigation field for decades the vagaries of the jury system never shock me anymore. I have been on a jury[DUI case] and it is not that hard. Of course, most of my education was not in the private sector, so I am not stupid. What is so disheartening is to hear the absolute horseshit people tell judges to get out of their civic duty. That means many jurors are stupid and lazy..great combo.
And I hate how FOX exploits the celebrity justice angle. Something sick about the way they cover it, like a fetish.Really, Fox News coverage has been great! Tabloid to the hilt!O'Reilly seemed to be genuinely pissed. It was almost like it was his kid.This is the ultimate tabloid news story. What do you want?
I know a lot of people that are severely bent out of shape about the not-guilty verdict. I didn't follow the case (mainly because I have small kids and they're not dead), but it seemed to me that the government didn't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt.The question here is...what does she do now? She can't live under the same roof with her folks. At the very least she's going to need a name change. I don't believe all these people that claim she's going to earn a mint on the fallout of this sad story. Maybe a book, but who would buy the damned thing?
Damn:The people who want to put her away just can NOT catch a break.
What do you want?Not tabloid. And no more Lacey/Chandra/Natalee abduction/murder porn.Oh nevermind. I gave up on FOX after Brit Hume left. The rest is just fluff.
You've got to start posting on Old Fart Time, Althouse. I'm up by 5:30!Honestly...are YOU up at that time, or just your colon and bladder?
"And I hate how FOX exploits the celebrity justice angle. Something sick about the way they cover it, like a fetish."Every single major media including the NY Times has this as their lead story right now, Fen.Fox covers the news, same as all the rest. This story is news.You're just biased against Fox because they won't recirculate Democrat Party memos.Your efforts to demonize Fox are so ham-handed and lame that in a weird way they enhance the credibility of Fox News instead of detract from it.So, I'm sure they appreciate your comments and that their ratings will be boosted.
Crack, that was just too funny.Come on. Nancy Grace is always right.Like on the Duke lacrosse thing.Another great single mother story there, right?
Here's what surprises me about the whole deal: reading the jury comments afterward, they say, not that they believed she was guilty but that there wasn't sufficient proof to lock her up, but that they truly believed she was innocent. I don't get it.But the people going on about how she'll rake in millions have forgotten that she'll only rake in millions if people buy the book, see the movie, etc., or, at any rate, if the Lifetime network thinks people will.
As to "good behavior" while in jail, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't much of the lying she's convicted of happen while she was incarcerated?
Of course, most of my education was not in the private sector, so I am not stupid.Asking as a person currently working in the private sector, could you please expand on that little quip?
just do not talk to policeWV - updeoIs blooger pro God?
As to "good behavior" while in jail, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't much of the lying she's convicted of happen while she was incarcerated?Yes, but on the bright side, she wasn't getting tattooed, engaging in one night stands or dancing naked on the top of the bar at any night club.
What about the guys who nailed Casey when she was out partying?Shouldn't they get a book deal, too?
Now Casey Anthony and her family can devote their time to going after the real killers.I'll bet OJ can offer good advice on PIs and such.
Nancy Grace is on CNN. Maybe she should go to jail for slurring and lying about the Duke Lacrosse players. The 3 indicted players got 8 figure settlements each and the rest of the players have sued and discoveryis going on now. Is that not TV worthy?
I gave up on FOX after Brit Hume left. The rest is just fluff.The only one who interests me now is Krauthammer and you have to sit through a lot of fluff to get to him. Didn't someone say this was the max she could get for these charges? That seems fair. They are also going after her for the costs of the investigation.
"Here's what surprises me about the whole deal: reading the jury comments afterward, they say, not that they believed she was guilty but that there wasn't sufficient proof to lock her up, but that they truly believed she was innocent. I don't get it."I haven't gone out of my way to follow the case or to read up on juror comments, but I did see one juror quoted yesterday as saying they were all in tears over their verdict, that they didn't necessarily think she was innocent, but that the state hadn't proved her guilt.I don't think we can assume all the jurors were blissfully convinced of her innocence. The jurors who voted to acquit despite their suspicions Ms. Anthony was guilty did the right and responsible thing...they voted for a verdict that was consonant with the evidence as they understood it; they did not make a leap to convict her based on their gut feelings as to what may have happened.
What is so disheartening is to hear the absolute horseshit people tell judges to get out of their civic duty.Is it lazy to not want to be the only uncompensated workers in the Legal Industrial Complex?
Listen, Judge Perry did his best to throw the angry mob a bone. A week, maybe two, it's better than nothin'.Meanwhile, has anyone seen Nancy Grace?
Never talk to the police when your child is missing? Sorry, but that tells me you are guilty of something.I think the judge here has tried to blunt the celebritiness of Casey, by not releasing her right away. He'd probably like her to spend the next full year in jail, so that when she gets out -- we're in the midst of a presidential election, there's another Trial of the Century of the Week, and Casey who? But he's constrained by the good behavior regulations and she'll be out soon.
Has either Playboy or Hustler made an offer yet? She seemed within throwing distance of airbrushable.
Has either Playboy or Hustler made an offer yet?William Morris is way ahead of them. And they may take Casey Anthony, Inc. public. Stock symbol "FU".Any way you cut it, millions and millions and millions.
With any luck she can put this sordid mess behind and get down to some serious partying.Surely large doses of alcohol will drown out that small voice and the image of pleading eyes.
Scott M, That was a typo..the good Sister Marguerite, who taught me typing[it wasn't keyboarding in the 60's] is scowling in her grave. My derision for the devolution of public education is well documented. I did go to public grammar and some post grad public university, so I know both. No comparison, public is inferior. It was back in the 60's, but the gap has grown exponentially.
HLN's Jane Valez-Mitchell to the mob outside the Orlando courthouse: Have you brought your own guns? Or do you wish HLN to supply you with guns?
X..yes it is lazy and wrong to shirk jury duty..and hell you get ~$20/day, about what you panhandle.
One good outcome: The beclowing of Nancy Grace is complete.The morning after the verdict she said she laid in bed and thought of little Caylee hoping that little Caylee didn't know what took place during this trial.This morning she said she did everything she could to let the world know who was guilty and she wished she could have searched for little Caylee herself. Both mornings she was misty eyed and near weeping.
Pogo, for someone who would be able to kill a child, I doubt alcohol is necessary, although it will certainly be used. For someone unable to kill a child, nothing would work to even eliminate the image you conjure, let alone the reality of watching your own innocent child die, at your own hands.
The media lives off story lines that confuse consecutive with concurrent. That is something that APS graduates fall for every time.I guess Casey was not the only liar attending the Courthouse today.She will have to pay a $4000 fine, but she gets credit for the millions of dollars her celebrity status will buy her from the media.Everybody she ever met is going to sue her now for inflicting her fame on them. It's Florida!Well, she will need to pay her lawyers , and that is the only good thing that thing that has come out of this mess.
Hasn't some of the time Casey's been serving been for the check stealing/forging that she did during Caylee's "missing" period? Would that be counting toward these new sentences?wv: sendeffa
I suppose it depends on whether or not Casey has a conscience. Sociopaths don't need booze.If she has even a vestigial remnant, Bacchanalllllll!!
The mob should also take comfort in that Belvin Perry is a genuine hanging judge. If he had had his way, the lynch mob would've had their way.
I guess I'd really like to believe that only a sociopath would murder her own child. When I hear things like this, I think of my own kids, and how dependent and trusting they are. Especially as toddlers, when they develop (or at least express) understanding and expectations that they will be cared for. What an utter and terrible betrayal. Too profoundly sad for words.
I didn't follow the case. A dead toddler is depressing enough, and now this. That's why I follow the career of Anthony Weiner. Relatively speaking, such a study exalts the human spirit.....I don't know if the mother is guilty of first degree murder, but whatever she is guilty of is worth more than three years. Plus she'll make a lot of money off her notoriety. The whole thing stinks and adds another layer of cynicism to our feelings about the judical system.
Sad to say that so many people got emotionally involved in this case. Like the Lindberg Baby kidnapping case that preoccupied/entertained the public during the Depression and took their minds off of their own troubles.....so is the Casey Anthony case.Bread and CircusesUnfortunately, when Casey begins making money off of this travesty and doing the interview talk show circuit, smirking her way to fame and riches.....I predict that some self appointed vigilante will probably 'off' her.Whatever. The media will then have a new circus to use to distract us while we are circling the drain economically and culturally.Look......Squirrel!!!
I think the FBI is doing hand stands in their offices. Now that you can go to jail for a year for every lie they, or the police, can prove.LEARN THIS:If you are approached by a cop for any reason. (Even if you were there when a car accident happened.) Do not even say "YOU SAW NOTHING!"Say, instead: "AM I FREE TO GO?"If they're trying to fool you to make a statement, because you think you haven't been arrested, yet ... you can go to jail!YOUR BEST SENTENCE: "AM I FREE TO GO?"If the cop says "yes." Put speed in your step, and leave.If the cop says "no." Your next statement is: "I WANT TO CALL MY LAWYER."Stupid sentence. VENGEFUL!The prosecutor could not prove how the child died. The toddler could have drowned.And, Casey, most surely panicked.Remember the rule: "AM I FREE TO GO?"
This was pretty much expected. In stir, she might not live four years, violent criminals being notoriously rough on child abusers.Fen said...And I hate how FOX exploits the celebrity justice angle. Something sick about the way they cover it, like a fetish.It is the Murdoch formula.
Traditionalguy. Man, if you think that girl looks pouty and mad when people are being mean to her wait until she gets that bill from her lawyers! Whatever money she is able to pull out of this deal will disappear as quickly as shit passes through a goose.
"That's why I follow the career of Anthony Weiner. Relatively speaking, such a study exalts the human spirit.."If that doesn't say it all, it surely says way too much about the world today.
Why was this case any bigger than any other case of a family member killing another?I didn't follow it but I noticed her fiance had a hot bod.
Let's go clubbing!I have to offer kudos to the defense team member who chose the severely pulled back, greased-down hair look. Her taxicab ears and ape like face made her look pathetic and probably had some effect on the jury. Now she can let her hair down and party.
Yeah, I noticed today she had that half-poof Snooki thing going on.
The prosecution failed to prove their case.Caylee might have drowned in the pool, or gone to play hide and seek in the trunk of the car and died of heat prostration, or whatever, but something so that Casey Anthony thought she could be charged with negligent homicide, so, not being all that bright, she decided to get really stupid and hide it. Then the family finds out and try to cover up her foolishness.With nothing definite proved as to what actually happened, you can make up any number of theories as to what might have happened.That Casey Anthony, and probably her family, failed to live up to your and Bill O'Reilly's notions of appropriate behavior is not a capital offense.And for all those on this thread who cannot read, the judge gave Casey Anthony four consecutive 1-year sentences, which with time off for "good behavior", which refers to her behavior in prison, not whether she lied during interrogation, will result in her getting out sometime in August or September, when the media circus should have died down, or so the judge hopes.
Nevadabob wrote:Moral of the story: Never, ever talk to the police. Ever. Ever. Ever.The are NEVER trying to help you and are ALWAYS trying to hurt you.one of the dumbest things I've read. You must have some criminality in your history. Let's go back to WHY the cops were trying to "hurt" Casey.She was arrested because her mom made a complaint about her stealing money from her and taking her car. The car turned up when the mom called the cops, BUT HER DAUGHTER WAS MISSING FOR A MONTH AND CASEY HAD YET TO CALL THE COPS ABOUT IT!It took her mother to try to arrest her for other crimes for it to even come out that her kid was missing. Then what does she do? Does she tell cops a story that might help them find her daughter or explain where the kid is , or explain why she never notified the cops about her missing daughter? Nope. Instead she makes up a story out of whole cloth about how she left her kid with someone who never existed and that person kidnapped her kid. Then when the cops press her on it, she says they are twisting her story and should be looking for this woman on other databases and that's why they haven't found her.Here's an idea. If you want the cops to help you find your daughter, and not think you're a liar, don't lie to their face when your daughters life is at stake.And seriously, please explain why someone who actually is a caring mother and who honestly doesn't know what happened to her daughter would even have a motivation to lie about her missing daughter to cops who are just notified at that moment that this woman's daughter has been missing for a month. Can you explain that logic? Because I'd LOVE to hear it.The only reason cops were not cooperative with her was because they found her to be a bullshit artist, and their prime suspect, not because cops will never help you, but because of her consistent lies from day one.And other than having an nvolvement in her daughters dear, what do you think is the Eason why, she would decide to lie to the cops to begin with (since at the time they initially interviewed her the cops didn't know the child was dead, and were told it was a missing persons case).
Other moral of the story: If you are going to dispose of a body, do it in a climate like that of FL. If you get lucky and they do not find the body for a sufficient amount of time, all forensic value is diminished to the point of reasonable doubt. Along with not speaking to law enforcement (which supported the long span between deposition and discovery), heat, humidity, wild animals and bacteria take care of the job.And now that I have seen Casey with her hair literally down, in court this a.m., I see kind of an Alanis Morissette kinda thing going on there.
Ya'll just hate her because she's white, thin and beautiful.
Shouting Bob wrote:Crack, that was just too funny.Come on. Nancy Grace is always right.Like on the Duke lacrosse thing.Another great single mother story there, right?even if Nancy Grace is a blowhard, who tends to exploit cases, and sometimes gets it wrong, it doesn't mean that she isn't sometimes right. In this case, she's right and you've left your brain at the door if you think there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that Casey was directly involved in the death of her daughter.Reasonable doubt requires that the doubts are in fact reasonable.And in the case of the duke lacrosse thing, the problem is, Nancy and others convicted them and bought the accusers story BEFORE they got to trial. In this case, we've been able to read and see all the details in the case as well as watch a trial, so there is no comparable rush to judgement.
Carol Hearman wrote:LEARN THIS:If you are approached by a cop for any reason. (Even if you were there when a car accident happened.) Do not even say "YOU SAW NOTHING!"Say, instead: "AM I FREE TO GO?"If they're trying to fool you to make a statement, because you think you haven't been arrested, yet ... you can go to jail!YOUR BEST SENTENCE: "AM I FREE TO GO?"If the cop says "yes." Put speed in your step, and leave.If the cop says "no." Your next statement is: "I WANT TO CALL MY LAWYER."I'd certainly do that if I was guilty of something, but if my child were missing, why would I not cooperate with cops to help them assist me in finding my kid? While cops will certainly be suspicious of a mother who doesn't report her daughter is missing for a month, and only when she is being arrested for another crime and her mother tells the cops that her granddaughter is missing and only then reveals that she was kidnapped, I'd imagine cops would become even more suspicious when, rather than telling the truth to help find her daughter, a mother actively lies to them about someone who kidnapped her daughter.Then, any reactions cops may have had to casey, were based on Casey.
She looked like a virgin during the trial.Today she looked like one of the Real Housewives of New Jersey.She definitely has a television show lined, some porn layouts, a couple of snuff films, and a movie of the week.The slut is set.She is a slut too. I thought women tended to not be sluts but that girl is definitely a whore.
If you follow the timeline, she actually told her parents prior to having it be discovered that Casey was missing, let alone dead, that she had left Casey with the baby sitter who it turns out, wasn't real.There is no other explanation, since the woman doesn't exist, other than that she was already dead, and that her mother was trying to set up a "my daughter was kidnapped by x story”. And actually, I take that back. There is a person with that name, only she has never met Casey and has no involvement with the Casey storyline, other than Casey tried to pin blame on her.Is there any other explanation for her actions?
I finally read the basic facts of this case. I'm amused that anyone thinks there wasn't enough evidence to put her away. People watch too much CSI.
Even the defense admitted that casey's not notifying the cops about her daughters disappearance for a month bordered on bizarre. They suggested that this was due to her being molested by her father, for which there is ZERO evidence, and which even the dense has pulled back from. So then if that wasn't the reason, because again, it never happened, then something else would have to explain her habitual lies when it came to her daughters disappearance.And note, she only told cops after a month, because she was about to be arrested, and had to come up with an explanation for where her daughter is. If she hadn't been arrested and if her mother hadn't pressed her on it, then every indication is that Casey wouldn't have said anything.Her father didn't molest her, so explain why she doesn't come forward at the time of her daughters death, that isn't sinister?Why does she tell her parents that she has to leave down fora business trip for a job she doesn't work for? Why does she tell them she is leaving caylee with a baby sitter who we now know doesn't exist? All of that points to someone trying to establish an alibi nd set up a story. There is no other reasonable explanation, and if there were it would have been brought out by the defense, and they wouldn't have to accuse her father of being a molester which led her to becoming a habitual liar.And why did she then lie to the cops when it finally came out that her daughter was missing. And she had to have dumped the body, since it wound up in a swamp. Who else did it? Why would cadaver dogs smell the dead body in the trunk if the kid died in the pool? Doent that suggest that someone put the body in the trunk? So then why would the defense try to suggest that the smell was garbage, and not a dead body?There's a prblem obviously with casey's storyline, but theres also a problem with the defenses suggestion that caylee died in the pool. Because, why then wouldn't the body be in the trunk of thie car? How else would the garbage bag that contained caylees body wind up in the swamp? It doesn't help Casey then that she had been accused of stealing her mothers car during that period. Why would the parents ask her to be arrested for stealing the car, and why would they also tell cops about how the trunk smelled like a dead body, if they were in on covering up her body, as that would only cause cops to think that there was something suspicious about the car. The whole story, of an innocent Casey, has so many holes itts like listening to your kids, coming up with some cockamamie story about why they were innocent of some transgqression, when clearly the evidence proves they are busted.Now the one thing you could say is, caylee died accidentally and that Casey panicked and then covered it up as opposed to murdering her and covering it up. Last I heard, that was still a crime. And since the defense established that Casey in fact is a habit rial liar, why should we be eve that she didnt Jill her daughter, when all of her actions suggest that she did. Someone had to dump the body in a swamp in a garbage bag, and it was either Casey, or Casey and her parents. Only all actions of the parents suggest that they were as shocked by the disappearance as everyone else. In fact, it was her mother that brought the disappearance to the polices attention. Why would she do so, if she and Casey were on the same page when it came to a coverup.
Now sue her for what it cost to investigate the crime, try her, jail her, etc....If she writes a book, sue and get all the proceeds. THAT IS JUSTICE!!!
The whole story, of an innocent Casey,I don't think anybody thinks she's innocent. I think the most likely explanation is negligent homicide. caylee died accidentally and that Casey panicked and then covered it up as opposed to murdering her and covering it up. Last I heard, that was still a crime.If they had put her on trial for that, I'm sure she would have gotten a conviction.
In my opinion, there was plenty of evidence for a first degree murder conviction. So it goes.
Here is the only story that makes logical sense. Casey killed either intentionally or accidentally her daughter then told her parents she was going to be leaving town on a fake business trip, and leaving her daughter with a baby sitter (who didn't exist) so that if it ever came out that her child was missing, she could say it was a kidnapping and tha the fake babysitter had done it. She then kept her daughters body in the trunk of her car and dumped the body in a plastic bag in a swamp with duct tape on the mouth and hints of chloroform in the trunk. She then went out partying as if nothing had happened for a month UNTIL her mother called the cops to have her arrested for taking her car and stealing money from her and because her grand daughter appeared to be missing.Granted, we've lost a lot of forensic evidence because caylee wasn't found for six months since she was decomposing in a plastic bag in a swamp, yet there is CERTAINTY, that Casey was involved in her daughter winding up in that swamp in a plastic bag and then lying to everyone about it both ahead of time and then to police at the time. She is not innocent. Saying that people handle grief differently may be true, but that I'd not relevant in this case, since the only plausible story is that Casey was actively involved in not only dumping her body, but then misleading the cops about it while her daughter was decomposing in a plastic bag in a swamp with duct tape on her mouth.Is it anyone's assertions that casey didn't know that her daughter was dead and her body dumped in that swamp or that she didn't put it there?
I think the most likely explanation is negligent homicide. Explain the duct tape found on the kid's face in the negligent homicide scenario.
Explain the duct tape found on the kid's face in the negligent homicide scenario.Specifically, duct tape which goes around to the back of the head. If you're wrapping duct tape on the kid's hair, you're not planning to take it off.
Shanna said... I don't think anybody thinks she's innocent. I think the most likely explanation is negligent homicide. If they had put her on trial for that, I'm sure she would have gotten a conviction. She was put on trial for that. The jury found her innocent on that charge also.
"not guilty" rather than "innocent".
She was not prosecuted for illegally disposing of human remains.Or was she? I have not followed it that close.
Michael...Any fee her lawyers get out of Casey was worth every penny. In a death case the fee is usually quoted as "all that you have". Unless the lawyer wins, then the property is of no further use to the client. From today forward, all money that is paid to Casey will be proximately caused by that lawyer's talent.
Freeman Hunt said...I finally read the basic facts of this case.The jury sat through the basic facts of this case for a month - and found nothing that would legally rise to the occasion. Because there were no rising facts, only a prosecution desperately trying to create even more work for the Innocence Project - 270+ wrongful convictions based on some form of the magical duct-tape theory.It's always a shame when citizens pass up the opportunity to witness their government at work. Particularly the prosecutors with all the resources of the state behind them - but who still find it necessary to frame a ham sandwich. And now look, the state's #1 clown in this case is all over the media displaying his skills as the "Laughing Man" - Jeff Ashton, government worker, laughing man, who, when he was laughing-boy, couldn't find employment in the private sector for love nor money. And thus became Laughing Boy, then Laughing Man, for the government.Case closed.
Explain the duct tape found on the kid's face in the negligent homicide scenario.Duct tape was used to secure the bags holding the body. At some point during the six months in which the bags and body were torn apart and scattered by animals, a piece of the tape became stuck to part of the skull.orSomeone moved the body after it had already decayed, and used duct tape to secure the jawbone to the skullorThe grandfather duct-taped Caylee's mouth while abusing her and she accidentally suffocatedetc, etc.All we actually know is that the duct tape came from the Anthony house and as of December was sticking to what remained of her skull near the jaw. There were prosecution forensic witnesses who said the tape was placed over the mouth and nose while Caylee was alive and defense forensic witnesses who said the tape was attached after the body had decomposed and could have been attached almost anywhere.I think a lot of people are stuck in this mindset of "it's not fair that there was no hard evidence because the body was disposed of too effectively, so that lack of evidence shouldn't count". But it does count. The mom's a flake and if I had to bet money I'd bet she killed her daughter -- but there are holes in the prosecution's case you could drive a truck through.
She was not prosecuted for illegally disposing of human remains.I don't think so (the previous poster cut out part of my quote, but this is what I was getting at). It probably doesn't carry a very weighty penalty so they didn't want to bother. Is negligent homicide the same as manslaughter? Are there degrees? I'm not a lawyer and didn't watch the trial.
If you're wrapping duct tape on the kid's hair, you're not planning to take it off. The assumption in the accidental death scenario is that all of that was part of the coverup, not the crime.
There were prosecution forensic witnesses who said the tape was placed over the mouth and nose while Caylee was aliveHow would they be able to tell if it was over the nose and mouth or mouth only? They don't have cause of death. There are a number of plausible, even likely scenarios, but we don't know which one is the truth.
They found chloroform with the body. Casey Anthony had been searching for chloroform on her computer. Duct tape wrapped around the head. They found heart-shaped adhesive residue on the duct tape that matched a roll of heart stickers found in Casey Anthony's bedroom. She didn't report the child missing and lied repeatedly about the circumstances of last seeing her.It's not a tough case.I also don't know where people get the idea that you have to know the exact cause of death for a murder conviction. You do not. That you do not was even contained in the instructions to the jury which I suppose the jury did not read.
Take the exact same case, same evidence, but imagine that the accused is a man, and the victim his girlfriend.He would fry.
You may not need to know the exact cause of death, but you do need to come up with something better than flaky and generally suspect behavior before you convict this person and not that one of murder.The jurors were there; you weren't.
It's not a tough case.No case is, if you simply accept the prosecutor's closing statements as the unequivocal truth.
Probably so, if it was a disagreeable and cranky old fart like, say, me; if somebody like a young Robert Redford, probably not.And I think you just shot your argument through the body.
Shanna wrote:They don't have cause of death. There are a number of plausible, even likely scenarios, but we don't know which one is the truth. There are? Like what?What is most compelling is what Casey did prior to being arrested, which points away from the parents being involved in any coverup to bury the body with her, and plenty of compelling evidence that Casey is trying to hide the fact that her daughter is missing and that she is with "the baby sitter". Her mother in fact, spends a better part of a mother trying to contact Casey, and keeps getting various stories about how Casey is with the baby sitter, or she is out of town because she has is in Jacksonville on business, or her car broke down. On the most basic level, all indictations are that Casey's mom thinks she is Orlando, and is not getting in touch with her. Any time any friend asks where her daughter is, she's with the baby sitter.
Take the exact same case, same evidence, but imagine that the accused is a man, and the victim his girlfriend.He would fry.Sure. He just wouldn't necessarily be guilty of murder. It isn't like we never execute innocent people on the basis of circumstance, forensic evidence, and "odd behavior", after all.People like to whine about the "CSI effect" -- jurors expecting forensic experts to be able to perfectly identify what happened. But the true CSI effect is that the public trusts state OR defense forensic experts at all when the field is so rife with corruption, bad practices, and pseusdoscience. The experts know their careers depend on saying what the lawyer wants to hear, and so they say it.
There is no doubt that Casey was involved in covering up her daughters death is there? SO then, the next question is did her parents help her after she was drowned in the pool, or did Casey do it alone.If you follow the phone records of the back and forth between Casey,her parents and her friends, it was quite clear that Casey's parents and family thought she was out of town in Jacksonville. And there was a ton of back and forth calls asking when she was coming back and Casey kept up coming with excuse after excuse none of which were actually true. All the evidence was that Casey was hiding from her parents and family. So then, if that were so, how is it plausible that they are involved in a coverup with her, if they don't know where she is during that time frame and are pestering her to get in touch with them to tell her where their granddaughter is. Meanwhile she is staying in town and going out every night. And to all her friends who also ask where her daughter is, she tells them the imaginary babysitter has her. Every time. Has anyone ever produced any evidence that she paid this baby sitter once? No? SO then, everytime she was out clubbing and her friends asked where here daughter was and she says with the baby sitter, Casey SHOULD have to answer for where she is, since she's not with the babysitter who doesn't exist, yet is also not with her mother. And the answer is simple. Because she's already dead. Since her family doesn't even know where she is for that month and she is unloading story after story, that precludes anyone else from killing her kid, so it's her and her alone.6 months later her kid winds up in a plastic bag with duct tape around her mouth, what other alternative scenarios do you want to present that would explain how she got there and why Casey acted the way she did, other than the simple one? She killed her daughter and dumped her body in a plastic bag in the swamp, while telling her family and friends that she was out of town, or that Casey was with the babysitter.
Shanna wrote:They don't have cause of death. There are a number of plausible, even likely scenarios, but we don't know which one is the truth. Just because the defense offers a scenario, does't mean that it is likely or plausible. What evidence do you have that any of the alternative scenarios ARE remotely plausible. Match that against the phone records at the time and the actions of the various people and you'll find that, no, the alternative scenarios aren't particularly plausible. If you do think so, you should be able to logically match it against the timeline, and your scenario should also explain why people act certain ways and explain why the say the things that they say etc. If you can't, then your alternative scenarios, are in fact not that plausible, nor likely.
Take the exact same case, same evidence, but imagine that the accused is a man, and the victim his girlfriend.Kids that age are far more fragile than an adult woman. Maybe it's just because we've had several accidental drownings this year in that age group that my head goes to negligence as very likely.
Hagar wrote:You may not need to know the exact cause of death, but you do need to come up with something better than flaky and generally suspect behavior before you convict this person and not that one of murder. Flaky behavior? She tells her friends, before her daughter is discovered missing that she's with a baby sitter that doesn't exist. ANd then when the cops get involved she literally drives aroud with cops at the location where she supposedly has dropped her kid off, and her story is completely false. That then begs the question, if there was no baby sitter at the time where was Caylee when she was out with her friends? What you call "generally flaky" is not flaky at all, but rather sinister behavior which speaks of someone who is aware that her daughter is dead at the time she utters her various lies. Flakey implies absent minded and unreliable. WHereas, her lies are consistent and point to foreknowledge and an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect. On the most basic level, if there is no baby sitter, then the child can't be with her. So when Casey is out with her friends saying her child is with a baby sitter for days on end, she HAS to be lying to her friends about her child's location. She has to be dead and Casey has to know that she is dead. At the very least then, she is covering up her daughters death, and has to also have dumped her childs body in the swamp, since it did wind up in a swamp in a plastic bag and was in fact, when found, partially decomposed. So, lets logically come up with alternative scenarios that would both explain why Caylee is dead in a plastic bag AND which explains why Casey told cops and friends that an imaginary baby sitter was watching her at the time. If you can't, then you shouldn't be able to get away with the idea that alternative scenarios are equally plausible.
Shanna wrote:Kids that age are far more fragile than an adult woman. Maybe it's just because we've had several accidental drownings this year in that age group that my head goes to negligence as very likely. So was this done at her parents house, which had a pool? Why then, was all the correspondence between her and her parents suggesting that the parents thought she was out of town?
So was this done at her parents house, which had a pool? Why then, was all the correspondence between her and her parents suggesting that the parents thought she was out of town?Explain your deductive leap from "it happened at the parents' house" to "the parents must have known about it".
No case is, if you simply accept the prosecutor's closing statements as the unequivocal truth.That's not what I'm doing. I haven't even read the closing statements. I'm looking at evidence.And I'm amused that people think that just because the defense offers an alternative, you have to believe that alternative is plausible.Any evidence that Anthony's dad ever abused her or her daughter? No.Any evidence that the kid drowned in the pool? No.A whole lot of evidence that Anthony killed her kid. Yes.That's why it's not a hard case."She didn't lie repeatedly because she killed her daughter. She did it because her dad used to abuse her."C'mon. Anyone bought that?
Revenant wrote:Explain your deductive leap from "it happened at the parents' house" to "the parents must have known about it". My point was addressing the defense assertion that the father helped her cover up the death, which happened at the family pool. So if the parents didn't know about it, that pokes major holes in the other plausible possiblities suggested by the defense, namely that they,helped cover it up. So now we're back to the Casey as sole perpetrator theory. And we have a dead baby who's face covered in duct tape who was dumped in a swamp. If Casey was the sole person responsible, then didn't she in fact dump the body as well?
speaks of someone who is aware that her daughter is dead The question to most of us, which you don't seem to be hearing, is not if she knew her daughter was dead. The question is how she died. This is rather simple.
Kids that age are far more fragile than an adult woman. Maybe it's just because we've had several accidental drownings this year in that age group that my head goes to negligence as very likely.So was this done at her parents house, which had a pool?I don't know how it was done and neither do you. My point was simply that a toddler is more fragile than an adult, so I don't think you can make an equivalent comparison between a case with an adult and one with a child. Maybe it's because I have nephews this age and they are constantly doing things that are dangerous. You have to watch them like a hawk. Especially near water. And yes, we have had at least two sad cases of accidental drownings around that age in town, so I am especially reminded of how easy it is for that to happen, even without a completely awful parent.
And I'm amused that people think that just because the defense offers an alternative, you have to believe that alternative is plausible.I'm similarly amused that people think that way about the prosecution."A woman who had no history of violent behavior or child abuse decided her daughter got in the way of her partying, so instead of leaving her with the grandparents and going to party anyway like the other 500,000 lousy single moms in America do she embarked on a three-month scheme to manufacture a complex chemical agent in her garage or something so she could suffocate the daughter with duct tape but didn't bother figuring out what she'd do after her daughter was dead".Next to that theory, "Caylee was abducted by Martians" sounds plausible. What retard thought up the "she wanted to party" murder theory, and why didn't they stop to think "huh, maybe we should present some form of evidence for this"?There is no evidence Casey wanted to kill her daughter. No evidence Caylee was chloroformed and/or suffocated. No evidence that Casey was even in the zip code when her daughter died, in fact. Just piles of evidence that she disposed of the dead body and lied to the police about it -- and given what we know about her, "she was trying to avoid blame or responsibility" is all the explanation you need of that.You have a web search for "choloroform"... along with dozens of other terms having nothing to do with the murder that supposedly took place. You have chloroform in the trunk... along with substances that can produce chloroform naturally. You've got a trunk that stinks of rot... that, when opened, contains a bag of rotting garbage and maggots. You've got body parts... scattered and chewed on by animals, with no discernible cause of death. You've got duct tape attached to part of the skull... and to the trash bags.Anyone who thinks that's enough to send someone to death row has no business serving on a jury. Or voting.
On the witness stand, Dr Werner Spitz, the renowned forensic pathologist, called the state's autopsy "shoddy". And the magical duct-tape theory nonsense.Dr Spitz also questioned why the remains were not chemically tested for drowning. Especially since the detectives were informed that Caylee had had direct access to the pool during the time in question.As to the question of plausibility. According to the FL Dept of Health, "Enough children drown each year in Florida to fill about 4 preschool classrooms." (Although not one died from any combination of duct-tape and/or chloroform)As to the chloroform, the FBI's own expert testified it was NOT found in unusual or abnormal levels. Not to mention that the making of chloroform requires a certain level of expertise - not something a non-chemist whips up in their kitchen sink. The matter concerning the heart sticker was never substantiated, only asserted. Not to suggest such a poignant and purely emotional connection had a bearing on anything except one's heartstrings. Bottom line, if you didn't at least watch the trial, you're not in position to make an informed comment, much less an informed decision.The jury got it right because that was the only reasonable, legal alternative.
My point was addressing the defense assertion that the father helped her cover up the death, which happened at the family pool. So if the parents didn't know about it, that pokes major holes in the other plausible possiblities suggested by the defense, namely that they,helped cover it up.You keep jumping from "the father" to "the parents" like those terms were identical. We've all seen married couples express a joint belief in X when we know damned well that one of the two knows X isn't true.Both parents, particularly the mother, acted like they thought Caylee was out of town with Casey. Now suppose the father actually knew Caylee was dead and had helped dump the body. Wouldn't he act exactly the same way?So now we're back to the Casey as sole perpetrator theory.That's your whole argument? "The dad said he thought Caylee was with her mom so he can't possibly have been involved in her death?"
Shanna wrote:The question to most of us, which you don't seem to be hearing, is not if she knew her daughter was dead. The question is how she died. This is rather simple. So if she knew she was dead,then she intentionally covered up the death correct? And either by herself or with others dumped her body in a swamp to decompose, correct?
BTW, juror #3 stated today that the jury did not believe anything George Anthony said. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.And who can blame them after dear-ol'-dad managed to impeach himself each and every time he was called to the stand.
Almost Ali wrote:BTW, juror #3 stated today that the jury did not believe anything George Anthony said. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.And who can blame them after dear-ol'-dad managed to impeach himself each and every time he was called to the stand. So give us some specifics about what he lied about? One person who has been consistently revealed to be a liar though is Casey.Here is her conversation with the cops where they call her on her lies, and she is so clearly giving them a run around and providing a story line that makes no sense. http://www.wftv.com/video/17461496/index.htmlAnd of course the defense themselves have called her a habitual liar.But let's establish that she knows what happened to her daughter when she is talking to the cops at this point. Would you disagree with this?
So if she knew she was dead,then she intentionally covered up the death correct? And either by herself or with others dumped her body in a swamp to decompose, correct?Yes.
jr565 asks...So give us some specifics about what he lied about?Why, would it make any difference?Lie #1: He denied having an affair during the search for Caylee. Cellphone records, text messages, and logs from the woman's (condo) guard-gate proved he visited her numerous times and at all hours. The woman subsequently testified that during one of his carnal visits, he said that "it" was: "An accident that snowballed out of control."Note: His original denial (tesimony) was compounded when he idignantly replied that the very thought was "laughable, and funny."
Speaking of lies Almost Ali,the defense was initially going to say the guy who found the body did it. He did have a lot of sayings about duct tape and all. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5723509-504083.htmlOnly he didn't give the daughter over to someone who kidnapped her, then forgot to mention it to anyone until she was confronted by cops after it turned out she hadn't mentioned it until then, (despit having spoken to Caylee the day before when she called after a month, but then hung up when Casey supposedly asked to speak to an adult). It;s hard for me to take much credibility from a defense team that would attempt to accuse this guy, rather than defend their client.
Almost Ali wrote:Why, would it make any difference?Lie #1: He denied having an affair during the search for Caylee. Cellphone records, text messages, and logs from the woman's (condo) guard-gate proved he visited her numerous times and at all hours.The woman subsequently testified that during one of his carnal visits, he said that "it" was: "An accident that snowballed out of control."Note: His original denial (tesimony) was compounded when he idignantly replied that the very thought was "laughable, and funny." He said, she said.And can she elaborate a bit on that it was an accident that snowballed out of control?
Robert Cook,Despite the chasm in our political philosphies, you are the thread winner. Your opinion is well thought out and, more importantly, in agreement with my opinion.No more need be said.
It;s hard for me to take much credibility from a defense team that would attempt to accuse this guy, rather than defend their client.You still don't get it.The defense doesn't have to be believable. The defense doesn't have to explain anything at all.The *prosecution*, on the other hand, needs to explain why there cannot be any reasonable doubt.There was no motive and no proof the death was a homicide. That alone gets you to reasonable doubt.
The question is how she died. This is rather simple.Some things to consider for those with an open mind:Dr. Vass used gas chromatograph testing on air samples from the trunk of Casey's car and found, in his words, "shockingly high" levels of chloroform and signs of human decomposition.Someone used Casey's computer to Google "chloroform" prior to the death. Also, "chest trauma," "ruptured spleen", "how to make chloroform" and "neck breaking." Casey's mother claimed she was the chloroform Googler but is now a proven liar since on the Google search dates in question, she was working.The autoposy was performed by Dr. Jan Garavaglia who testified she ruled the death a homicide due to the body being buried in the woods and the discovery of duct tape near the skull. Casey's diary entry in the days following the disappearance: "I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. I hope that my happiness will continue to grow– I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people – I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change."Googling "Chloroform" and other forms of inflicting harm, chloroform and signs of human decay found in the trunk, duct tape linked to Casey found on the skull, and that "happy" diary entry. Maybe she's a just the unluckiest mother on the planet. Maybe.
Someone used Casey's computer to Google "chloroform" prior to the death. Also, "chest trauma," "ruptured spleen", "how to make chloroform" and "neck breaking."So was Caylee's spleen ruptured? Her neck broken? How about chest trauma?Are we supposed to believe that Casey sat down to research ways to kill her daughter and thought "hm, how about rupturing her spleen"?
So was Caylee's spleen ruptured? Her neck broken? How about chest trauma?err. . .When you're considering different ways of killing someone, you only have to settle on one choice.
Dr. Vass used gas chromatograph testing on air samples from the trunk... in his words, "shockingly high" levels of chloroform and signs of human decomposition.Vass did not conduct a "quantitative" test. Also, his method of testing had never been peer-reviewed. In addition, Dr Vass had no background in forensics. In fact, the prosecution could not locate one serious forensic scientist to concur with Vass's "finding." Not even in the FBI, who subsequently testified for the defense that the chloroform levels found were "low to normal."In other words, "Shockingly high" is a junk-science term.
The term was "Firefox search," according to the state's computer "expert."Not a good place to start if you're the expert.
Casey's way overdrawn at the Bank of Karma. I don't know how far the parole system will let her travel, but she'd probably be happier someplace far away from the Sunshine State. At this point, her notoriety is all that she has to trade on, and she owes her lawyers a lot of money, so changing her name and appearance and taking a waitress gig in Seattle is probably not in the cards. It would still probably be better for her in the long run, though.
Diary gobbledy gook about wanting/hoping to be happy doesn't exactly tell us what happened.I hadn't heard the bit about the gf of the father saying he said it was an accident that went wrong. Interesting.
Almost Ali wrote:Dr. Vass used gas chromatograph testing on air samples from the trunk... in his words, "shockingly high" levels of chloroform and signs of human decomposition.Vass did not conduct a "quantitative" test. Also, his method of testing had never been peer-reviewed. In addition, Dr Vass had no background in forensics. In fact, the prosecution could not locate one serious forensic scientist to concur with Vass's "finding." Not even in the FBI, who subsequently testified for the defense that the chloroform levels found were "low to normal."In other words, "Shockingly high" is a junk-science term.Whether or not you believe there were adequate chloroform levels in the trunk of the car, it's almost goes without saying that Caylee was in the trunk of the car, right? Because people like Rev have already acknowledged that they believe that while Casey may not be guilty of murder, she and her father did cover up the death and then by necessity transport the body to the swamp to throw out in a trash bag. So then , why would the defense deny the foul smell was that of the body, (which the cadaver dog noted), and wasn't a hair from a corpse found in the trunk? See, if Casey & George are involved in convering up the death and dumping the body, it would make perfect sense that the car might smell like a dead body. Yet the defense, while insinuating that is what happened, denies the forensics that would validate that aspect of their story (perhaps they might think that keeping Caylee in the trunk for a few days might be considered callous, or maybe admitting that their client (and her father) dumped a dead little girl into a swamp with a garbage bag, might make their client seem a bit, evil?)
So then , why would the defense deny the foul smell was that of the bodyI'm not sure what you think the job of the defense is exactly. You seem to think their throwing out different theories means something. Their job is to create doubt. They did that. It is the prosecutions job to make a case that fully explains what happened before they put someone on trial for capitol murder.
In other words, "Shockingly high" is a junk-science term. The university Doctor followed his "shockingly high" comment with the following: "We had never seen chloroform in that level in environmental samples ... in 20 years." "Shockingly" appears to be an appropriate adverb. The instrument used by Vass did indeed provide a quantifiable measure. It was the defense witness who was unable to provide a measurable value since he did not perform the same test with the same instrument. Moreover, the defense witness tested the air in the trunk after the trunk's carpet had been removed. It was a stain on that carpet that generated the high readings that Vass measured. Finding normal readings at that point would be, you know, normal.Why would a defense witness test the air sample after removing the stained carpet generating the high readings? It's almost as if... Nah. Couldn't be.
Diary gobbledy gook about wanting/hoping to be happy doesn't exactly tell us what happened.Correct. It just provides a motive.
When you're considering different ways of killing someone, you only have to settle on one choice.Oh, murder techniques were being searched for? So why does the list contain "self-defense", "hand-to-hand combat", and "ruptured spleen"? How much of a fight was Caylee expected to put up? Also, why does the list NOT contain the actual supposed method of murder: suffocation with duct tape?For that matter, exactly when, where, and how did this high school dropout who was living with her parents and had no job rig up a chemistry lab to heat chlorine and methane and distill the chloroform from the chloromethane, dichloromethane, and carbon tetrachloride that resulted?Here's a theory: chloroform, which is produced by rotting bodies, was in the trunk because there was a rotting body in the trunk. It was there in unusual concentrations because there was an unusual concentration of its precursors in the trunk: chlorine (from the pool she drowned in) and methane (from the decaying body).Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool. Casey, who clearly has little to no sense of personal responsibility and was probably not thinking clearly, flipped out and disposed of the body in the back yard to avoid blame (corpse dogs gave positive results for several spots there). Later on she moved it, with or without her dad's help. She ditched her car because it stunk from the corpse and she couldn't emotionally deal with it. She lied to police because at that point what else what she going to do? She'd broken the law. She stuck with the babysitter story because she'd already lied to her parents about the babysitter before.That's a theory that makes sense. The "secret cold-blooded murderer chemistry whiz with no motive" theory, not so much.
It just provides a motive. Or it's an attempt to deal with the aftermath.
Correct. It just provides a motive.There are two obvious problems with that.(1): That is not a plausible motive unless it is established that Casey was a sociopath. The prosecution failed to lay the groundwork there.(2): There is no explanation as to how killing Caylee would lead to happiness. The prosecution tried a lame "Casey wanted to party and Caylee was a drag" theory. The problem there is that Caylee had two doting grandparents -- so the theory is "Casey wanted to party and Caylee was a drag, so rather than ditching the kid with the grandparents like the other half-million party-animal bad moms in America she launched a three-month murder plot to kill the kid instead". Which wouldn't even work as a bad episode of Law&Order.
Rev, Here are some instructions on how to make chloroform. It doesn't look that hard to make:http://howtomakechloroform.com/Onte thing that initially might seem like its hard to get would be the scratch powder. Only in reading about it, it looks like it's used with pools. And since Caylee supposedly died in a pool, a pool was on the premises. So, perhaps it wasn't so hard to get after all. And Caylee had plenty of time to make it considering she didnt' actually work where she said she did, so could have used that time to stir up some chloroform. Also, chloroform is used in the creation of meth. SOmething tells me, that Casey would not be out of sorts in the sort of criminal world, considering while she was lying about her daughter dying she was also financing herself by forging checks she got from accounts from people she loved, like her parents and grandparents and boyfriends.Finally, if she's cooking up a batch of chloroform from scrathc in her parents kitchen it might explain why the sample was more potent than usual. I will grant that the chloroform aspect is probably the weaker element of the case (she could have simply given her xanax, then covered her mouth in duct tape - one of her boyfriends used xanax a lot), but its not inconceivable that it could have been used.
@RevenantOther than water and ice, you need two ingredients to make chloroform - one of which is used for swimming pools. If only it required a chemistry whiz. I could be sympathetic to your description of events if it weren't for the duct tape. There is simply no cause to tape a child's face in an accidental death.
I don't see how that diary entry can be construed as consistent with an accidental death and coverup. If that really happened, there is no way you would be telling yourself this is the happiest you'd been. I mean, seriously. Think about that. Your daughter accidentally drowns. You freak out, and hide the body, report nothing to any authorities. Then you say to yourself in your private diary a few days after her death that "This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. " I realize that grieving takes many forms, but WTF?
Also, chloroform is used in the creation of meth. SOmething tells me, that Casey would not be out of sorts in the sort of criminal worldWhen all else fails, imagine a connection to meth dealers. There doesn't have to be any actual evidence of it when "something tells you" it is true.I will grant that the chloroform aspect is probably the weaker element of the case [...] but its not inconceivable that it could have been usedThe standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is possible the prosecution is right".
Rev wrote:There are two obvious problems with that.(1): That is not a plausible motive unless it is established that Casey was a sociopath. The prosecution failed to lay the groundwork there. Well we do know that she is a habitual liar, and that while her daughters body was decomposing in a trunk she was out lying to all her friends and family saying a baby sitter had her kid. And that the baby ended up in a swamp in a garbage bag? What, not even a proper burial. And we know that many people commented on her lying skills, and that she was stealing money from her doting grandparents and parents all the time, habitually. And we know that her mom said something along the lines of "THere is a sickness on George's side of the family and it's in Casey too" (not sure of the exact wording) in one of her emails. She also made google searches for "chloraform", "chloroform", "alcohol", "acetone", and "peroxide". and "shovel". Acetone is used in the making of chloroform, and a shovel does play into this story as well. This doesn't mean that had her plan totally thought out at this point, but who can look into the minds of a sociopath. SHe had already started telling people about Zanny the nanny, long before her daughter had disappeared, despite the fact that there was no nanny that she was using. When she lies to the cops, she has elaborate lies setup for all aspects of her case? WHy doesn't she have the phone numbers on hand for Zanny or her coworkers? Well she does, but she lost her phone which was provided for her by Unversal,and had just changed out the sim card. Who were her coworkers at the time? She instantly had on hand credible sounding answers that which were all on the tip of her tongue really quickly and which she had memorized, or was able to rattle off without much thought. Another trait of a sociopath, by the way. With such a good liar, why would I have a problem beleiving she was in fact telling the truth? (since of course we still don't know what that truth is from her end).As to her motivation, her parents were getting divorced, she had to move out, she hated her parents, she was constantly stealing from them and didn't have a regular job. ANd she was a party girl, who was now responsible for a little kid.
Rev wrote:When all else fails, imagine a connection to meth dealers. There doesn't have to be any actual evidence of it when "something tells you" it is true.I will grant that the chloroform aspect is probably the weaker element of the case [...] but its not inconceivable that it could have been usedThe standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is possible the prosecution is right". The prosecution didn't say she knew meth heads. I'M saying in certain circles having access to chloroform isn't that big of a deal. And am not saying with certainty that she does know meth heads, but she certainly is a shady character. And at any rate, it doesn't have to be that complex. She has access to a pool and pool supplies, lo ahd behold, the very things needed to create chloroform, which she googled on more than one occasion. So your assertion that she had to be science whiz or that chloroform would be beyond her ability to access. She has the pool she has the chemicals (because she has the pool) and she has looked up how to create it in the past.And a high level of chloroform is found in the trunk of the car that she has put her kid to rot after killing her (or after she died). And she then went out and partied and lied, rather than look for her daughter.
I could be sympathetic to your description of events if it weren't for the duct tape. There is simply no cause to tape a child's face in an accidental death.Caylee's skull had duct tape stuck to it near the jawbone. "Caylee's face was duct-taped while she was still alive" is a theory presented by prosecution forensic witnesses to explain that fact.Other theories that have been presented are:1. It was put there after the body had decayed, to hold the jawbone in place during transport.2. It was used to secure the trash bags during transport and became stuck to the skull when the bags and body were torn apart by animals (which also explains why the tape was found on the bags as well as the skull).
Final word on duct tape.When I posed my hypothetical hours ago, no one came up with the defense's explanation of the duct tape. The defense's argument was that Casey's dad placed the duct tape directly on the face in an effort to make an accidental death look like a murder. The defense stipulated that tape was placed over the child's face prior to dumping the body. They just said it was done by the granddad in an elaborate coverup scheme. That's what you need to be defending if you buy the defense case. Forest animals taking tape from the garbage bag and transferring it to the kid's face and other "theories" won't work if you believe Casey. It's the let's-make-this-tragedy-look-like-a-murder-that-can-be-traced-to-us explanation.
Well we do know that she is a habitual liar [and stole and dumped the body in a swamp etc etc]When you offer a new argument, I'll over a new reply.
Revenant wrote:The problem there is that Caylee had two doting grandparents -- so the theory is "Casey wanted to party and Caylee was a drag, so rather than ditching the kid with the grandparents like the other half-million party-animal bad moms in America she launched a three-month murder plot to kill the kid instead". Which wouldn't even work as a bad episode of Law&Order. As alraedy discussed, it is well known that despite having doting parents, they were also deeply in debt and going through a divorce and kicking Casey out of the house. And of course, Casey had no problem stealing both cars and money from her doting parents. And many people descirbe how she hated her parents, both of whom could be especially domineering. But as to your last claim, about how this wouldn't make it in a bad Law & Order episode, what about the coverup? Would that make it in a bad Law and Order Episode? Ok, so lets buy your theory. Her daughter dies. rather than coming clean, or having her father help her stage the death so that it looks like an accident in a pool, she instead, dumps the body in the car and lets it sit there so long that it starts decomposing, thus creating high levels of chloroform. She then dumps the body in a swamp while covering the mouth with duct tape in a trash bag. And while everyone is out looking for her daughter she then goes out partying as if nothing is amiss, not revealing to anyone that her daughter is dead. And only comes clean when her mother, after frantically calling the police, comes up with a bizarre story that involves her daughter being kidnapped by her baby sitter, but her not telling her doting parents (as you describe them) or anyone except for the baby sitters mother, and an old friend who the baby sitter baby sat his son (only he doesn't really have a son), neither of which she has the phone numbers for because she lost the cell phone issued by Unversal studios (Where she hasn't worked any time recently). Then she describes the very location where the baby sitter lives and even goes with the detectives looking for her. THen takes the detectives to her worker location before finally revealing that she doesn't in fact work there. When the detectives ask what the point of taking them to a place she doesnt work is, and how it helps find the daughter she FINALLY comes clean and says that she doesn't work there, but sticks with the baby sitter story, despite the cops thoroughly discrediting her account to her face. THAT would be believable in a Law & Order episode? More importantly, you expect me to trust the veracity of someones story who is capable of telling lies that deep and consistent while people are looking for her daughter, despite offering no evidence that she in fact acted in anything but a shady fashion?When her defense team has no problem smearing the guy who found her daughter as if he was the killer? So she lies about her daughter dying, she lies to her parents to her friends to the cops, even when the cops and people on the street are out looking for her daughter? and has no problem railroading an innocent guy and suggesting that HE did it? WHen she know, since she at the very least buried the evidence of her daughters death that it was an accident?Are you for real?
That's what you need to be defending if you buy the defense case.Like I've already pointed out many times, the standard is whether the prosecution's case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.So no, I don't have to defend the "George tried to make it look like a murder" story. Both the prosecution's story and the defense's story sound like horseshit to me -- and under our system, when the prosecution and the defense are both full of it, you find the defendant not guilty.
Ok, so lets buy your theory. Her daughter dies. rather than coming clean, or having her father help her stage the death so that it looks like an accident in a pool, she instead, dumps the body in the car and lets it sit there so long that it starts decomposingThat's not the theory I posited. Please learn to read and consult the 9:25 PM post.
Writ small wrote:The defense's argument was that Casey's dad placed the duct tape directly on the face in an effort to make an accidental death look like a murder. This one is pretty funny. Because, ok, Cayley isn't guilty of murder, and the death is only accidental. But her and her father, instead of trying to create a crime scene that makes it look like she died accidentally (and how hard would that be? If she died in the pool, why not simpy stage the scene so that it looked like Caylee snuck out while everyone was in the other room and jumped in the pool, and they then discovered her thereafter) create a scenario whereby Caylee was MURDERED by someone else. So, they want to pin a murder on someone, so long as it wasn't them? What if cops buy their framejob and actually go out and arrest someone LIKE SAY THE GUY THE WHO FOUND THE BODY who the defense said was the real killer? Yet Casey is a great mom, who was simply guilty of panicking and covering up an accident. or what if the cops did go after Zanny the nanny, who is a real person, only not real in the sense that she had anything to do with Casey) and charged her with the murder? The defense, and in particular Casey seem to have no problem suggesting that other people are resonsible for the death of Caylee.
Revenant wrote:That's not the theory I posited. Please learn to read and consult the 9:25 PM post.Apparently he seems to have a problem with my assertion about what theory he posited. The only difference being that prior to putting her kid in the trun to rot, she first buried the baby in the ground, then dug Caylee up and THEN put her in a trunk. I would think that the longer she's in the trunk the more chloroform would actually be released, buying your theory, so she would at the very least have to have been the highlest levels of chloroform seen in an environmental sample in 20 years! But I digress. "
Both the prosecution's story and the defense's story sound like horseshit to me. . .I consider this progress. Have a good night.
The only difference being that prior to putting her kid in the trun to rot, she first buried the baby in the ground, then dug Caylee up and THEN put her in a trunk.I see the whole "learning to read" thing isn't working out for you. In addition to getting the above detail wrong, you also got the duct tape wrong.As for your usual tl;dr about lying to the cops and partying, that's already been addressed.
she would at the very least have to have been the highlest levels of chloroform seen in an environmental sample in 20 years!You assume the forensic expert was right. I see no reason to assume that; after all, at least one of the two sides' experts were wrong in their assessments.
Revenant wrote:I see the whole "learning to read" thing isn't working out for you. In addition to getting the above detail wrong, you also got the duct tape wrong.As for your usual tl;dr about lying to the cops and partying, that's already been addressed.Ok let me go to your 9:25 post to see where I'm wrong. concentration of its precursors in the trunk: chlorine (from the pool she drowned in) and methane (from the decaying body).Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool. Casey, who clearly has little to no sense of personal responsibility and was probably not thinking clearly, flipped out and disposed of the body in the back yard to avoid blame (corpse dogs gave positive results for several spots there). Later on she moved it, with or without her dad's help. She ditched her car because it stunk from the corpse and she couldn't emotionally deal with it. She lied to police because at that point what else what she going to do? She'd broken the law. She stuck with the babysitter story because she'd already lied to her parents about the babysitter before. Ok, so where am I getting your theory wrong? There was chloroform in the trunk because she had chlorine on her bathing suit and was decomposing (thus producing methane) and the build up in the trunk produced high levels of chloroform. But prior to that, when realizing that Caylee was dead, Casey first buried her in the backyard. Then, she had to at least keep Caylee in the trunk long enough for her decomposing body to produce high levels of chloroform, but also to cause a stink that smelled like a rotting corpse which lingered for days and which many people remarked upon and which cadaver dogs were able to sniff out. And eventually she then dumped the body in a plastic bag, with duct tape around its head in a swamp to decompose some more, while lying all the way.So you've already described her as burying her body, dumping her body in a trunk to decompose, throwing her body in a swamp to decompose, then lying to everyone's face consistently for a month, while going out partying as if nothing was wrong. She clearly has no sense of responsibility, doesn't think clearly is prone ot flipping out and is a habitual liar. Why would a person like that be incapable of killing her daughter? She's certainly capable of covering up the crime and then lying to to her doting parents, cops and the media, and friend like a sociopath, but why not capable of comitting the crime itself?
All this had me remembering Jon Benet Ramsey (not OJ)
There was chloroform in the trunk because she had chlorine on her bathing suit and was decomposing (thus producing methane)I was thinking "in her lungs and on her skin", actually.And eventually she then dumped the body in a plastic bag, with duct tape around its head in a swamp to decompose some moreLike I wrote earlier, the tape could have either been placed to hold the jaw on, or been used to hold the trash bags together and not placed on the body at all.while lying all the way.I already gave a plausible explanation for lying to her family and to the police.while going out partying as if nothing was wrong.Yes, she acted like nothing was wrong. That's what people do when something's wrong and they don't want people to find out.She clearly has no sense of responsibility, doesn't think clearly is prone ot flipping out and is a habitual liar. Why would a person like that be incapable of killing her daughter?Wrong question. The correct question is "is a person like that clearly a sociopath". Answer: no. Half the teenagers in America fit that description.
WritSmal said...The instrument used by Vass did indeed provide a quantifiable measure.Disagree - unless Dr Vass provided the parts-per-billion for the chloroform(?), or even a parts-per-million. Which he didn't do since the test was "qualitative," not quantifiable. The chloroform was a red herring embraced by the "Laughing Guy," prosecutor Jeff Ashton - who has since fallen into the arms of the heavily invested liberal media for redemption.Regarding what or wasn't in the trunk of Casey's car, the matter of human decomposition was left in dispute. What wasn't in dispute was the bag of weeks-old, wet garbage that was found in the trunk. And then immediately dried - apparently to erase any and all competing odors.To put it bluntly, the prosecution was building a case founded on lies, not evidence. This became especially obvious when they vehemently objected to defense witness Dr Rodriguez. Who disappeared from the witness stand the minute he mentioned chloroform. (Despite the judge's assurance that Dr Rodriguez would return to complete his testimony)The eminent Dr Rodriguez, who's employed by the DoD, appeared on behalf of the defense on his own dime - but was subsequently threatened by the DoD not to continue his testimony. The court only addressed his sudden disappearance just prior to closing arguments. What we're talking about here is; tampering with a witness. More, a witness qualified to blow any ideas about chloroform right out of the water. Dr Rodriguez was professionally incensed that the crackpot theory advanced by Dr Vass was even allowed in court.At some point there will have to be an explanation as to Dr Rodriguez's disappearance, and the role his employer, the DoD, played in his disappearance. Also the role the court played, that is, the judge's tacit approval of the witness tampering. Also the assertion that Jeff Ashton was directly involved in the DoD's interference.Nonetheless, the jury saw and heard enough of Dr Rodriguez's testimony to draw their own inferences. Which they did: NOT GUILTY.
Almost AliAll that you're describing is dueling witnesses coming to different conclusions. How is that different than what you find in any trial? In the case of one, he's describing incredibly high levels of chloroform in the trunk, and your expert is questioning the methodOgy. Only he didn't test the rig that Voss tested, so the two are arguing different things. What does it matter though? Even revenant can come up with an "innocent explanation" for why chloroform was found in the trunk, so to suggest that chloroform wasn't in the trunk is essentially arguing an irrelevant argument. What's a bit more important is that her body was found in the trunk, thus disproving other testimony from the defense that supposedly discounted the idea that there was a body in the trunk? Can we all get on the same page and admit that yes, caylees body was decomposing in the trunk, and all the people saying they smelled a decomposing body were right and the people, like the defense, saying it was just garbage were wrong or lying? And if it were in the trunk, it's not a great stretch to realize how Casey got the plastic bag containing her daughters corpse to the swamp. Ergo, she is the one who planted the dead body (with or without the help of daddy). And then, while everyone was out looking for the corpse was lying and misdirecting, as a sociopath is won't to do
Revenant wrote:Like I wrote earlier, the tape could have either been placed to hold the jaw on, or been used to hold the trash bags together and not placed on the body at all.Didn't the defense argue that, as will stated:that tape was placed over the child's face prior to dumping the body. They just said it was done by the granddad in an elaborate coverup scheme. So even the defense are suggesting the duct tape was sinister, and placed over the mouth to suggest that the child was murdered, only that it was done by the grand dad and not by caylee. If in fact caylee loves her dad and is innocent and knows there is an innocent explanation for the ape being there, it would be wrong of her to allow her defense team to suggest that it was planted by her dad. But then again, it's already been established that caylee will lie without limits, to protect her own ass, so it shouldn't be surprising.
Can we all get on the same page and admit that yes, caylees body was decomposing in the trunkNo. It wasn't proven. All that you're describing is dueling witnesses coming to different conclusions.That's the point, the defense cancelling the prosecution - leaving the jury with nothing.Therefore: NOT GUILTY.
Seemed pretty straight forward to me: It's not reasonable to doubt her guilt. If someone who knows the evidence told you they doubted that she actually did it, wouldn't you find that unreasonable?I don't see why the jurors felt they had to pretend there was a reasonable doubt. There was little doubt, and what there was was not reasonable. They all believe she did it. I believe they simply confused highly unlikey possibility with a "reasonable" doubt.Guilty
Almost Ali:so how do you think the body wound up in the swamp? Either it was Casey or the Dad or both, or it was the baby sitter? Because if we buy the defense's argument, or the juries argument that it was simply an accident that spiraled out of control, that would mean that Caylee wasn't murdered but did die. THEN, Caylee lied about it to the cops,and to her family and her friends despite knowing that her daughter was in fact dead and rotting. and then her body wound up in the swamp,in a plastic bag. Well, who else could have done it? Even if you say Casey didn't drive the car, she knew that Caylee was rotting somewhere. I mean, you're arguing something that not even the defense is arguing, that somehow she is innocent. Maybe it WAS the babysitter. Maybe it was the same killers that got Nicole Simpson,
I wasn't going to allow myself to get drawn into this debate since many here didn't take the opportunity to actually watch the trial. Apparently because watching (or acknowledging) such a trial is/was beneath them. But even I, comfortable at street level - missed certain portions of the live testimony, which meant relying on the jury to make the call, but also confident they would make the right call: Not guilty. Because the prosecution failed to present one scintilla of direct evidence - only cockamamie theories involving duct-tape and homemade chloroform.Although virtually the whole country watched the trial on TV, few if any followers of Althouse were so inclined. Preferring instead to jump to erroneous conclusions, issuing pronouncements and making judgments as would the naked queen.
Even revenant can come up with an "innocent explanation" for why chloroform was found in the trunk, so to suggest that chloroform wasn't in the trunk is essentially arguing an irrelevant argument.You're mistaken. The prosecution's case depends on BOTH (a) the presence of elevated levels of chloroform and (b) there being no plausible explanation for its presence other than "murder". I suggested (b) was wrong, Ali's suggesting (a) is wrong.Can we all get on the same page and admit that yes, caylees body was decomposing in the trunkNo, because -- as has been repeatedly pointed out to you -- there doesn't need to be a single agreed-upon theory of what happened in order for there to be reasonable doubt. If the body was never in the trunk, the prosecution is wrong and Casey is not guilty of murder. If the body was there but wasn't chloroformed then the prosecution is wrong and Casey is not guilty of murder. If there was chloroform in the trunk for an unrelated reason (e.g. decaying trash) then the prosecution is wrong and Casey is not guilty of murder. Etc, etc.And then, while everyone was out looking for the corpse was lying and misdirectingBecause normally when someone illegally dumps a body, they help people find it right away.as a sociopath is won't to doAffirming the consequent fallacy: "Sociopaths lie; Casey lied; ergo Casey is a sociopath".
Revenant wrote:I'm not on a jury so don't have to listen to the defenses bull to know that they are lying and throw shit against the wall. And just because the defense makes a statement, doesn't make it a reasonable one. For example the notion that the father was involved in the coverup, or that the father molested Casey. Many in the jury rejected such arguments. I'm applying logic of what I know about the case to come to a very reasonable conclusion. You're throwing in all the defense tricks to say that because these are alternative theories, that therefore they dilute the prosecution case. Defense attorneys are notorious liars. They posited that Casey didn't do it, that Caylee died and that the father covered up the crime, that the guy who found the body was probably responsible, that the father was a molester and therefore that is why Casey is a habitual liar. The way I look at it, is if casey is a habitual liar, then there's is no reason why I should trust that she wouldn't kill her kid and then lie about it. Just as she robbed her parents and friends and then lied about it. Saying your defense witness is so flawed that she would actually lie to cops while her own daughter is rotting in a swamp, which she put there, diminishes her character and makes the remainder of the prosecutions evidence far more likely. Well of course she killed her kid and then covered it up. We have all the evidence of the coverup, and she is someone of such dubious character that there is no reason to assume she didn't kill her daughter.
f the defense is going to argue the sun and the moon, and place blame on others, despite knowing that their client is not guilty and the person going along with it knows that person is guilty, they are again not of credible character, and it becomes far more likely that they would hide their murder and then try to pin it on others, which is exactly what she did, not once but twice.And suppose someone died around me, like say my wife or my daughter, and I panicked and thought that the cops might pin it on me. So I threw their body through a wood chipper, and then put the cops on a wild goose chase, if it turned out that I was caught by the cops I wouldn't expect too many people to buy my "i'm innocent" story. Because I put my wife through a wood chipper and destroyed all the evidence and then lied about it. Saying, I'm innocent because there is very little evidence to implicate me is negated by the fact that I destroyed the evidence by throwing my wifes body into a wood chipper. IF Caylee truly died accidentally, there is no reason that her or the family couldn't present that accident as what it was, an accident. Instead, she decides to turn it into what looked like a crime (i.ie a kidnapping from some hispanic woman) and then lied to everyones face about it. If she would lie to her own family, the very doting grandparents that you say offered her support, and let her daughter, her own flesh and blood rot in a swamp while people who care about her are spending valuable time looking for, then she is a scumbag of a person, and any motivation makes sense. Because she has revealed that she will tell any store and blame anyone so long as she gets off. Sorry, but she doesn't get more of a benefit of a doubt because cops took too long to find the body that she dumped in a swamp. as to your notion that If the body was never in the trunk, the prosecution is wrong and you and I both know that Casey WAS in the trunk. And we both know that chlorophorm (not to mention a human hair from a decomposing body) was found in the trunk. So why are you arguing conjecture when we know those are facts. Because we know that there was a horrible smell in the car that smelled like a rotting corpse exactly at the time that we know Caylee disappeared, in the car that Casey had access to. And we know that the the body was dumped in a swamp to decompose. And we know that Casey knew that her child was dead when she started making up her inane lies. So then, the simple question is, how did she get the body to the swamp, since we know that the body wound up in the swamp,and we know that Casey had to have known her kid was dead and decomposing, and if she wanted to cover it up, she had to put the body somewhere so that she could go forward with her bizarre kidnapping story. So either there is a very simple explanation for the chloroform and the smell in the car or you have to start going into bizarre suggestions not even offered by the defense. Like, ok, there was a stench sufficient enough to arouse a cadaver do in the exact car that Casey would have had to use if she were to hide a body, or Casey, despite having said car would have had to have another means of transporting a body, which there is no record of, and that vehicle didn't smell, but her car did. Did George's car smell? Did anyone else's car smell like a dead body?Finallyi, the whole idea that her or her father came up with a kidnapping/death by suffocation alternate crime makes no sense. If someone dies naturally of a drowning, why would you pretend that the body died of something other than a drowning. Because if a forensic scientist can look at the body, and it's not completely decomposed, they can find water on the lungs that will determine that the person died of a drowning. THen the question would be, why, if the person was drowned, is someone putting duct tape on her mouth as if she was suffocated (both assertions by the defense).
and if Casey really was innocent of murder and only guilty of panicking and covering it up, why didn't the defense argue that, rather than try to pin it on Casey's dad, or the guy who found the skull, or refute the evidence that the car stunk of a dead body. If she was in fact responsible for covering up her daughters death, and hiding the body and pretending that there was a kidnapping and pinning it on the hispanic maid, then of course her car might smell llike a dead body was in it. Because how else was she going to get her body to the swamp, wihtout using the only car she had access to. Even if you say her father drove the body over there, he must have used the car that Casey had stolen at some poitn, since the car smells like a dead corpse and you would have to then argue that he drove a separate car with a dead corpse in it that somehow didn't smell like a corpse, but Casey's car which didn't have a corpse in it, somehow was able to fool a cadaver dog. Do you have any evidence that Casey somehow gave the car to her dad, then took it back or that a different car was used, or do you have an explanation that's reasonable to explain why she would have such an ungodly stench in her car that wasn't beacuse her daughters rotting corpse was in the trunk, especially after you've just gotten through telling me that Casey DID in fact cover up her daughters murder (which would therefore necessitate hiding the dauthters rotting body).
Almost Ali wrote:Because the prosecution failed to present one scintilla of direct evidence - only cockamamie theories involving duct-tape and homemade chloroform. Because the body was found with ductape over the mouth! Because the defense suggested that the father put ducttape over the mouth as a means to suggest that Caylee was murdered to throw off the scent. Both sides acknowledge that the duct tape was there. Only you seem to suggest that the very idea of the duct tape is some cockamamie theory. Which is why I'm wondering, why are you suggesting that those saying Casey is guilty isn't looking at the evidence. There is duct tape on her mouth for a reason. There is the prosecutors reason and there is the defense attorneys reason. Which is more reasonable? If you say that the prosecutor didn't prove it's case as to why the duct tape was on on her mouth (and why she was decomposing in a plastic bag) that doesn't negate the fact that duct tape was on her mouth. So you shouldn't leave your brain at the door and not come up with something. That would leave you then with the defense's assertion that the father did it. Or if both are wrong, and you believe that it was an accident out of control, then someone else put ductape on her mouth? Some third party in the conspiracy? The defense, and the defenders of the defense team seem to think that they can just throw anything out there. They don't have to prove it. Well, actually, they should have to prove their case, and not simply be able to get away with making wild accusations. Is there story credible? Are the various strories they propose internally consistent or are they simpy throwning things against the wall. The more apparent that it's an everything but the kitchen sink defense, the less credible their actual defense is.
and finally, in the link I provide of her interrogation (actually her second) with cops, the cops gave her an out. They very quickly realized that her story was complete and utter bullshit. her daughter had been missing for a month and Casey never bothered notifying anyone, not even family members. The only people she told she conveniently lost their numbers and abviously never called (since she called them on a phone that was never issued to her by her fictitious job).Cops said at the time that they knew she was lying and knew where here daughter was, because her story could not be believed. And they offered her a choice - they could look at her as someone who made a mistake, there was an accident, or they could look at her as an uncaring monster who knows her daughter is dead but instead of finding her daughter is sticking to the story, despite sending cops on her wild goose chase. And she chose not to come clean. She may very well have been trying to save her ass, but if she decides to go down door number two, there is absolutely no reason for cops to assume then that she was innocent of the more serious charges. Same with the prosecutors. When faced with whether it was a homicide or whether it was an accident, their decision was made based on Casey's refusal to actually say it was an accident. If it wasn't an accident and she swore to her statement being truthful, and her story points to her being guilty as sin (sin obviously if she is giving her baby to someone that doesn't exist, and doesn't notify anyone for 30 days until she's caught, then obviously she is the one who got rid of her kid, or kowns who did)So don't blame cops or prosecutors for charging her to the full extent of the law, nor for people following the case to assume the worst. It's like having her cake and eating it. She wants to maintain her subterfuge, but also pronounce her innocence. It's one or the other.
and then of course, after the defense first blamed the guy who found the skull, then her dad, then suggested her brother was the father of the kid, then said that the forensic evidence was wrong, then basically said that yes, she and her father covered up the death, and it was just an accident. WELL WHY DIDN"T SHE SAY SO BEFORE SHE WENT TO TRIAL?
SHe had already started telling people about Zanny the nanny, long before her daughter had disappearedMy first thought on that is that she lied to people that someone was watching the kid when nobody was. That was her answer to “why are you, a single mother, at a club at 2 in the morning? Where are you kids?” Oh, they’re with the nanny. I know of people who have left kids that age home alone, locking them in their room, to go out. It happens. The way I look at it, is if casey is a habitual liar, then there's is no reason why I should trust that she wouldn't kill her kid and then lie about it.That is a fine standard for some dude commenting on the internet, but not for a jury. suppose someone died around me, like say my wife or my daughter, and I panicked and thought that the cops might pin it on meAs I mentioned earlier, parents are held to a different standard on children’s accidental deaths than adults. Even good parents whose children have died in accidents have been questioned at length by child services. Casey had more of a real reason to be concerned that she might be questioned, even if she did not kill her daughter. Especially if she left her alone.
The defense, and the defenders of the defense team seem to think that they can just throw anything out there. They don't have to prove it. Yes, that’s how it works. The defense’s JOB is to provide doubt. They do this by throwing out alternate theories that also fit the evidence. This is much easier when the evidence is thin. As Rev mentioned, it is the Prosecutions job to fully prove that their ONE theory is what actually happened. They did a good job proving the cover-up but could not tell the jury how the little girl actually died. And contrary to your statement, the fact that there are so many other potential theories provides MORE doubt not less.
Shanna wrote:Yes, that’s how it works. The defense’s JOB is to provide doubt. They do this by throwing out alternate theories that also fit the evidence. This is much easier when the evidence is thin. But if the defense is shady, and if it looks like a throw the stuff against the walll and see what sticks it in fact provides less doubt, because you realize that it in fact is flim flam. I realize that is the defense's job, but that doesn't mean that just because the defense does it's job that it therefore provides the doubt that the defense thinks it does. Jurors are supposed to look at the totality of the evidence, including the alternate theories and see if in fact they fit. Some people can see behind the curtain to what the defense atty is doing. Now, sometimes they are in fact effective, but they don't have to be simply because they are posing a defense. Not one of their alternatives was remotely plausible, when looking at the totality of the evidence, and cheapened their case. Yes the jury fell for it, but we shouldn't jump up and down about the juries smartness. Sometimes juries fall for idiocy. "The gloves don't fit so you must aquit" type idiocy. I suppose their the jury was absolutely in the right too. Becaause after all, the glove didn't fit.
Shanna wrote:My first thought on that is that she lied to people that someone was watching the kid when nobody was. That was her answer to “why are you, a single mother, at a club at 2 in the morning? Where are you kids?” Oh, they’re with the nanny. I know of people who have left kids that age home alone, locking them in their room, to go out. It happens Again, use your logic. Where was she keeping her kid? She didn't have a lot of places to put her. She moved out of her parents house, and they didn't know where she was. She was staying at her boyfriends house, and he was asking where she was, and was told that she was with the baby sitter. She couldn't be in the car, unless she was kept in the trunk unless she was being drugged (like say with chloroform) because she had to take her car to club and people would see the kid with her at the club. She didn't have a crash pad to keep her child. THere was no baby sitter. There was no home alone. So, again, you're not looking at the evidence logically, but rather making an assumption - she had a place to put her kid. NO SHE DIDN"T. Not a place where people wouldn't see her kid. So, logically you rule out all the places where she should be and is not, and what do you have left? Dead!
again, for people like Rev. The cops, upon seeing that her story was total idiocy and made no logical sense, asked her to come clean. They said she could be viewed two ways, as someone involved in an accident, or innocent type scenario, or as an uncaring monster who is out partying whiile her daughter is dead, and who is sending the cops on wild goose chases rather than saving her daughter.She chose not to come clean,and instead stick with her story, which would mean she chose door number two. She signed this statement as truth. I know this as a fact. I'm assuming the jury heard the tape. If she signed the statement as truth, why should I then say that no she is in fact innocent. If she was innocent, she wouldn't have signed the paper, which kept up the pretense that the baby sitter did it. I realize that suspects don't want to give up the goods and come clean. Yet their unwillingness to do so, counts as lying and can certainly then be used as one of the reasons their story cannot be trusted. Why, should I, or anyone, give her the presumption that she is telling the truth or that her defense is telling the truth, when she has signed a statement that continues her falsehood. And which doesn't even match her defense's arguments.When on the other hand I look at the fact that her daughter is lying in a swamp in a plastic bag, with duct tape on her mouth, who she put there. And it's pretty clear, since her car smelled like death and chloroform and a hair were found in the trunk. And when she was missing she was out partying and saying she was with a baby sitter. and prior to that had known financial problems, and was known as a party girl who didnt' want the responsibilities of having a kid, and who looked up things like how to make chloroform. and who stole her mothers car and money, and was living on stolen checks. And who was a fantastical liar, who literally made up her job at universal and coworkers, and that she was given a phone from them and their phone numbers, and zanny's address, and her mothers address, and her roomates name. And this person wasn't even real. That is a fantastical liar, with no morals, who will dick over her loved ones and take their money, with nary a thought. She's a narcissistic sociopath.
Shanna wrote:As I mentioned earlier, parents are held to a different standard on children’s accidental deaths than adults. Even good parents whose children have died in accidents have been questioned at length by child services. Casey had more of a real reason to be concerned that she might be questioned, even if she did not kill her daughter. Especially if she left her alone. Her "Confession" is part of the evidence. Her confession was signed as truthful. Cops said they coudl treat her as someone who did something accidentally, or someone who didn't. SHe refused to say it was an accident and instead stuck with her story. So why should prosecutors then assume it was an accident? If it wasn't an accident, then the reason she wound up in a swamp in a plastic bag is because it was done intentionally. That's why prosecutors make plea bargains. She should have argued that it was an accident rather than that she was innocent. But certainly the fact that she said it wasn't an accident is part of the evidence that we can look at. ANd parents are adults. She's 22. So what different standard should Casey be held to then me, if I after my wife or child accidentally dies I throw her body through a wood chipper and then send cops on a wild goose chase. If they say, your story is preposterous, and we're left with two conclusions. Either you're lying about your story, or you're a monster I doubt I'd get the presumption that I in fact was innocent. No, I put my wife or daughter through a wood chipper. If it was an accident I covered it up and destroyed the evidence that made it look like an accident and instead made it look like someone who shredded his wife or daughter, and told cops that it wasn't an accident and that I was innocent and the baby sitter was the one who put my wife or daughter through a shredder.Why would I get the presumption that I was innocent, when I in fact destroyed any evidence that said I was innocent and then lied to cops and family the whole way for a month? Yes, I'd get the automatic presumption of innocence going in, but any juror would say, if it was an accident, YOU SHOULDN"T HAVE PUT YOUR WIFE OR DAUGHTER THROUGH A WOOD CHIPPER. the fact that you did, diminishes the argument that you in fact were innocent all along. Do you think I'd get off?
Where was she keeping her kid? I was responding to your comment that she mentioned the nanny prior to the child's death. Other than that, it's all circles again. You disagree. I get it. But the defense did their job well, obviously, because the entire jury agreed and they agreed quickly.
I'm not on a jury so don't have to listen to the defenses bullNor do I have to listen to yours.
Shanna wrote:Where was she keeping her kid? I was responding to your comment that she mentioned the nanny prior to the child's death. Other than that, it's all circles again. You disagree. I get it. But the defense did their job well, obviously, because the entire jury agreed and they agreed quickly. again, just because the jury disagreed and decided quickly doesn't mean they decided well. The on jury also decided quickly, and they were a bunch of idiots. Or, are you also defending their decisions. Maybe Cochran and co. arguments were in fact reasonable. Maybe on really is looking for the real killers. The jury did decide.But in reference to your story about the baby sitter, one COULD view it your way, or one could look at it that she had in the back of her mind a plan and set it up to kill her kid that required her daughter disappearing and havin a nanny take her. Because, keep in mind, until her daughter actually disappeared and she did start using the baby sitter defense, no one had seen her with a baby sitter, and there was no way for her to actually use a baby sitter. She was out of her house, living with her bf. If she went out,her bf would know where caylee was because he was with Casey, and there was o other place for caylee to go (other than her parents). And when Casey wasn't going out, everyone who saw her saw her with her daughter. She required both a baby sitter, and a fake job that allowed her to be out of town so that if her child was not with her, it could be explained away that she was with a baby sitter and the only real wayshe could think of toget her out of town was by saying it was job related (a job she didn't have)Casey, is a habitual, but also quite a proficient liar who established quite elaborate multiple level lies involving many subtexts that look on the surface, plausible, but are shown to be bogus, when you look a little deeper.Now, it's not implausible that she did in fact set up this ruse to kill her daughter. She didn't want her daughter, she was stealing ex boyfriebpns checks to pay for her bios, she hated her parents, who were going through a nasty divorce and who were dead broke and who kicked her out of the apartment. Why is it implausible to think, especiallywhen constructing a scenario that moves her out of town, despite not actually leaving town, or actually earning money, and which sets up a babysitter who no one sees, which she can't use until she pretends to be out of town, and which she conveniently does blame for her daughters kidnapping when she does get caught.
Revenant wrote: I'm not on a jury so don't have to listen to the defenses bullNor do I have to listen to yours.I never said you did. Only you know I'm right. Her chance of having her case viewed as an accident and not as a homicide disappeared when she stuck to her story that cops knew was bogus, even though they offered her an out, which would have led to her being charged for doing what she did, namely covering up an accident (if that is what she did). Lesson to be learned. If you lie convincingly enou, people will believe you or not believe you, and that will dictate the charges that the da brings against you.If you are guilty only of covering up an accidental death, don't lie to the cops and try to carry out a ruse, or you might get charged with a capital crime.Were all about personal responsibility, right? She signed her statement, at the police station, that ruled out that her crime was accidental, so therefore the prosecution had no choice to charge her the way they did, and if people view her as a murdere, well that's because she dumped her daughters body in a swamp, then lied about it, then tried to pin it, as a crime, on other people. Most people don't behave that way. Most people would never dump their child in a plastic bag, let alone party as if nothing was wrong for a month. There is literally zero evidence that she did die in the pool, other than her say so, and it makes little logical sense for someone, upon finding a body in a pool, to stage the death as if she was suffocated or even kidnapped and then try to pin it on someone as if they kidnapped them, when it would make perfect sense to stage the death as a death in the pool. But the only evidence pointing to the death in the pool was casey's word, and has been determined she lies her ass off. Is that story any more credible than that she worked at Universal, which also sounded awfully credible until cops pressed her on it and realized that, no, it was actualy a crock of shit.So the defense offers an alternative scenario. The dad did it. Ok, so produce some evidence that proves this is true. Where's the forensic evidence that she had water in her lungs, where are the cell phone records where caseycalled her dad, and the records that showed her and her father meeting up during that time, or eyewitness accounts. There is plenty of that stuff with Casey being the sole person involved storyline, very little wight the dad coverup storyline.We know the rough time frame when caylee disappeared, and since George worked during that time, we should be able to match up a huge chunk of his schedule to the time that Casey was free, which we have on file, to determine whether that scenario is remotely plausible. The defense did not do so. The most they have is a witness whoMAY have been having an affair saying that George admitted that something went wrong and spiraled out of control. When? How? If none of that info is available, Rhenish how plausible is it as a scenario. It's certainly possible, but it doesn't mean that it has to be accepted, especially when it contradicts other info.If it was a pool accident, then why wasnt that casey's and the defenses story to begin with, and why can't they prove the forensics, in even the most basic sense, to prove their story is accurate. Because their client buried the evidence in a swamp, that's why. And any evidence was degraded, because her body literally rotted. That's why. And why did that happen? Because the little sociopath dumped her daughter there In a trash bag.
Post a Comment