Althouse: "Casey Anthony's 'Not Guilty' Verdict..."

July 5, 2011

"Casey Anthony's 'Not Guilty' Verdict..."

"... summons O.J. Memories."

297 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 297 of 297

Pastafarian said...: You're right, Lawbringer. I can't possibly consider more than one thing at a time to be an injustice.

Free Casey! Fly to the stripper pole, Casey, and dance like you've never danced before.; 7/5/11, 9:18 PM
sorepaw said...: I suspect that the prosecutors in this case were way too impressed with the outcome of the Laci Peterson case.; 7/5/11, 9:20 PM
Synova said...: "Question: Who on this list has searched for "chloroform" on the internet? How many times?"

There are two kinds of people who think of ways to kill people... mystery writers and sociopaths...

Not cholorform but I sort of hope no one ever has reason to think curiosity about the taste of human flesh is... odd.; 7/5/11, 9:23 PM
Revenant said...: Just because there is a conflict there for the jury to settle, does not mean the jury should conclude, "she put tape on her dead child's mouth."

They didn't have to conclude that, because the prosecution never established that Casey put the tape there at all.; 7/5/11, 9:25 PM
Joanna said...: But why is it that the American public seems to become fascinated with these kinds of cases only when a white female is involved?

I tried not to follow the case. I tried really hard. (I didn't care, I found it frivolous in comparison to other things happening in the world, and I didn't want to waste my time on it.) But I like to watch news shows, and they kept bringing up new details everyday, on every show. After enough exposure, I became interested. Why does the media focus on these stories?

there are only two plausible possibilities here: Either she killed the child intentionally (first degree murder) or unintentionally (manslaughter).

#3 She was indirectly involved with the murder and/or witness to the murder.; 7/5/11, 9:25 PM
Michael said...: TraditionalGuy is paying appropriate homage to the system and to good lawyering. You will note that in the defense's summation they used a good old boy to do the judge's job, to tell the jury what they could and could not do. A good ole white boy drawling like he just recovered from a stroke, passionately telling them what they could think and what they could not think. And he showed the famous chart that has about twenty stages of being convinced of guilt; all the way from "could have" all the way up to "probably did" and then at the very tip top was the without a doubt "Guilty." It was masterful and it was as down home and colorful as you can get. Borderline stereotypical. Highly effective because they listened and they acted these people who know a goodly bit about the law already from tv and the relative who has had the occasional run in. TraditionalGuy recognizes mastery when he sees it. Throw in a fair system and you have a template for how to get away with murder.; 7/5/11, 9:29 PM
Cedarford said...: Saint Croix said...
The facts of a case cannot simultaneously point to first-degree murder and manslaughter.

Yeah, no kidding. First degree murder requires premeditation. Manslaughter is accidental death.

Not true. Many 1st degree murders involve absolutely no premeditation. In every state and by Fed charges.
Maybe what you meant is that premeditation is a factor, among others, that could lead to 1st Degree Murder charges.; 7/5/11, 9:35 PM
rcocean said...: If you think people on the internet are stupid, just serve on a jury.

I've served on a couple and I was the smartest person in the jury room.

How sad is that?; 7/5/11, 9:39 PM
traditionalguy said...: This is when Dandy Don Meredith would sing "turn out the lights, the party's over". And Rhett Butler would say "I don't give a damn" to which Scarlett O'Hara would reply, " Tomorrow's another day."

And I will say good night to Pasta with the answer that life has always been too complex for me to pick the right arguments in a court room without exercising faith. That is part of connecting with Jurors on the level that they are on for a time.; 7/5/11, 9:41 PM
Cedarford said...: WoW Lawbringer said...
It's this kind of story that reminds me of Kurt Tucholsky's quip: "The death of one [person]: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!" During Casee Anthony's 17 day trial for murdering her daughter, three hundred thousand children died of starvation ... but that's just a statistic. There's no wailing and gnashing of teeth for child soldiers in Africa or the underage sex slaves in Asia; just a lot of insults toward Floridians dumb enough to let this "obviously guilty!" woman off.

================
Yeah same 50 year old brain dead liberal line about any concern for any one American is inappropriate because it distracts us from the Real issues - aggrieved groups in America or in some distant 3rd, 4th world craphole where (1) More people are suffering than the American in the news or (2)suffering worse.
You can't care about the fate of 1 America while 3900 are suffering as child soldiers who do much killing and raping they may regret when they become adults...or the one, just 1% of surplus females unwanted in overpopulated countries become sex workers.; 7/5/11, 9:43 PM
Synova said...: Silly Cedarford... caring about "one" is always better than caring about the mass of humanity in all of its romantic and gory distant glory...

...but why should we all be caring about the exact same one and not the other "ones"?

Particularly as the Virtue in caring for "one" is that this is the most effective place to care. Placing that care on "one" that there is no possible way to do anything for or about is as futile as preferring the concern for untold masses of child soldiers or anyone else. What is the difference between one and many at that point?; 7/5/11, 9:53 PM
Saint Croix said...: I think every parent who has had a crying child says to himself, "I wish that child would shut up."

It's natural.

It's natural to want to silence a crying child, a pain in the ass baby, this bundle of need that can be such a stressful burden to you.

So yes, perhaps every mother and father has felt this brief, repressed desire to "silence that kid."

And so maybe they are fascinated when a person does this dark thing and murders their own child.

So what?

Jews and Christians have outlawed infanticide for over 2000 years precisely because it is so easy. Just shake the kid and you will silence her.

Just tape her mouth shut. Hold a pillow over her.

If you are looking for a class to define as sub-human, a child is pretty much it. They are weak and helpless and vulnerable. They cannot defend themselves and they are easy to kill.

This is precisely why Jews and Christians despise infanticide.

What is interesting to me is not why people are following this case. Why do so many people seem to not care about this dead little girl?

Who do you think killed her? Any thoughts? Any ideas?

Why did this jury acquit her mom of killing her? Why did the jury shrug its shoulders as she covered up her crime?

I think it's Roe v. Wade.

She has a right to terminate her child and it's private and it's none of our business. The liberal argument that we can terminate the unwanted is the ugly, dark truth that is underneath this case.; 7/5/11, 10:02 PM
Carol_Herman said...: The case was lost because the prosecutor had no idea how the child died.

Then add in the lies told through the media.

you heard of the search for chloroform? Well, that contained an exaggeration.

You heard Casey was a terrible mother? That, too, was an exaggeration.

I think when a lawyer has a good case he shuts up. And, gets the jurors to see the crime.

When the "fix is in" this changes.

Assassination by media is what is wrong, here!

And, believe it or not, it is NOT easy to convince 12 people of anything.

Heck, you can't even get people to slow down enough to read the thoughts of others.

And, then real schmucks come along and brag that they just scroll past some people.

Glad we had such a good day at exposing the prosecutors ... who didn't carry their case!

More of this. Please.; 7/5/11, 10:02 PM
Joanna said...: I do and don't buy the CSI/TV argument. Yes, it would have been easier to convict Casey if there had been CSI-evidence. What was lacking was the CSI-story that the CSI-evidence provides.

At no time (to my knowledge) did the state say "Here's what happened. X, Y, Z. The End."

The evidence alluded to a myriad of stories, most of which make Casey aware of (if not responsible for) Caylee's murder.

But not a once did the state have the balls to pick one of the possible narratives and roll with it. Instead, they decided to to make a blanket statement. "There's so much evidence! It all points to *something*! YOU decide. If I pick something you don't agree with, you might not side with me. YOU examine the evidence and decide which story makes the most sense to you. There are so many different stories, I just can't pick which one!"

And that was their biggest fuck up. The state said (in their closing)? That individual jury members didn't have to agree on the story of how the crime happened, they just had to agree that the event (murder) happened. WTF. That's entirely opening the door -- no, not just opening the door, but also shoving the jury through the door -- for jurors to consider any myriad story that happened.

The state would not offer one specific storyline. They nudged the jurors' imaginations by saying any story that arrives at a guilty verdict is legit. Oh really? What might my neighbor be thinking about? What other possible stories are there? I think X happened, but what if it were Y. What if it were Z. Hell, what if it were Q?

Somewhere in those what ifs is a storyline where Casey is not guilty. And there was the state, TELLING THE JURORS THAT THOSE ALTERNATE STORYLINES THAT ARE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ARE ALL AS LEGITIMATE AS THE NEXT ONE. Of COURSE the jury did what they did.

The state pretty much told the jurors that ANY storyline that could be supported by the evidence was a story with legitimacy to prove guilt. And if it's a worthy of proving guilt, then it's worthy of assessing guilt.

What the jury needed and DID NOT GET was a definite story of WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED that resulted in Caylee's body being discovered in the swamp or wherever. In the era prior to DNA evidence, that story would have been given. Instead, the state was too chickenshit to pick a specific story. They didn't over-charge/over-reach. They over-spread.

You don't need DNA evidence to provide a frickin' STORY of WHAT HAPPENED. What the hell difference would it make if Casey's fingerprints were on the duct tape or a jar of chloroform were found with fingerprints in Casey's underwear.

With or without evidence, the state needed to walk the jury through the story of what happened. That's what happens on those CSI shows. There are hunches and curiosities, and in the last 15 minutes, a STORY IS TOLD. Yes, the DNA evidence provides the anchor for those stories -- but if the story were told prior to DNA evidence being shown, it would still provide a compelling narrative. The DNA part? It's a plot device for the TV show. The compelling part is the story.

All the jury had was a bunch of "that can't be good!" evidence. It's like the state showed the jury a bunch numbers and left it up to the jurors to do the math to add those numbers up. No, it's the state's job to both show the numbers and add them up. No story? No glory. The jury needs to be shown evidence as well as told what to believe.

The state chose to cast a net and hope that different people stuck to different things. If the state had provided a narrative allowing jurors to have a more uniform perspective going into deliberation, maybe the result of the trial would have been different.

Apparently I needed to vent. tl;dr...; 7/5/11, 10:05 PM
Amy Schley said...: Grr ... internet communication really doesn't translate sarcasm/ irony/ crankiness well.

Currently, my facebook wall is covered with these "boo hoo hoo/travesty of justice" posts. What I would like to post in reply would go something like this:

If I don't donate money to help any of the 18,000 children who die of starvation every day,
and if I don't do anything about child soldiers being used as human shields,
and if I don't really worry about preteen sex slaves,
why am I supposed to get worked up over a Florida lawyer botching the prosecution of a white trash slut who murdered her bastard?

I don't know any of those victims, so why should I care more about the one who got the media circus?

Four years and three days ago, a girl the same age as Caylee and living four houses down was killed when her jackass uncle threw a firework into the house, catching it on fire. Her 14 siblings and cousins made it out; she didn't. He was convicted of manslaughter, but he's already out of prison. I'll save my "boo hoo hoo/travesty of justice" sympathies for someone actually in my circle of influence instead of someone whose newsworthiness was based on how salacious the details are.; 7/5/11, 10:06 PM
JAL said...: The chloroform question had to do with the forensic report that prior to the little girl's disappearance someone -- the ex-mom? -- No! Wait! Grandma under oath said she looked twice! (Chloroform, chlorophyll what's the diff?)

After she previously testified under oath that she did not search.

But it was something like 84 searches.

Stuff like that really bugs me in cases like this.

Occam's razor.

This whole thing was bizarre.

And very, very sad.; 7/5/11, 10:15 PM
Revenant said...: a white trash slut who murdered her bastard?

Do your parents know you're up past your bedtime?; 7/5/11, 10:27 PM
Amy Schley said...: And actually, I just went back to refresh my memory of what happened to Jewell Morse, and it turns out the manslaughter conviction was actually overturned because of a 5th Amendment issue. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-court-of-appeals/1520600.html

My issue with this case is that there is nothing about Caylee Anthony that makes her more important, more a part of my life, or more worthy of my sympathy than the kids who are abused and murdered anywhere else. We only know she ever existed because cable TV shills have whored out her story to increase their ratings.; 7/5/11, 10:31 PM
galdosiana said...: Synova said: ...but why should we all be caring about the exact same one and not the other "ones"?

I believe Star Trek: Search for Spock addressed this exact issue, and concluded that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.; 7/5/11, 10:34 PM
Amy Schley said...: Do your parents know you're up past your bedtime?

No, because I haven't lived with them since I married nine years ago.

Perhaps I should have just used the term "brat," given as how most people are unaware it also refers to an illegitimate child.

I am familiar with this kind of promiscuous and fecund trash, as a couple of my cousins can't quite grasp how to have non-productive sex. The elder sister has 3 kids under 5 by two men, and the brother managed to impregnate his lover within six months of becoming a married man. In a world with condoms for men and women, pills, diaphrams, rings, patches, IUDs, vasectomies, tubal ligation, abortions, and adoption shortages, having an unplanned pregnancy and following it up with single parenthood are marks of the poor planning and impulse control that define trashiness.; 7/5/11, 10:46 PM
Trooper York said...: Jeez I would think more of the lawyers would be commenting now.
I mean there is no way they can sleep at night.

You know what I mean.; 7/5/11, 11:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm waiting to comment until Derek Jeter gets 3000 hits. So, probably late September.; 7/5/11, 11:33 PM
Revenant said...: Perhaps I should have just used the term "brat," given as how most people are unaware it also refers to an illegitimate child.

Express your contempt for the dead child in whatever manner makes you feel like more of a man.; 7/5/11, 11:56 PM
Trooper York said...: Cool Seven. I guess that means we won't hear from you till next week.

Take a break dude. Carol Herman has you covered.

Enjoy.; 7/6/11, 12:12 AM
Amy Schley said...: @Revenant It's woman, actually.

And the fact that Caylee was illegitimate is huge part of why she's now dead. Had her mom been able to keep her legs together or at least use birth control, she never would have been born. Had her mom been responsible enough to realize that she was unprepared for parenthood, she could have been adopted and raised in a stable family. Had her mom been responsible enough to realize that parenthood takes two parents, she could have had a father to protect her from her mother.

Thus, identifying Caylee as an illegitimate child, even in perjorative language, is an expression of contempt for the woman who conceived, bore, and poorly attempted to raise an innocent child.; 7/6/11, 12:13 AM
Anonymous said...: identifying Caylee as an illegitimate child

Identifying someone as an illegitimate child is an identification of the child. Differentiation based on legitimacy was done away with long ago in this country. Very, very much rightly so.

Go fuck yourself.; 7/6/11, 12:20 AM
themightypuck said...: I think Casey Anthony is probably guilty but from what I heard, the evidence against her boiled down to "duh she's guilty". 80-20 guilty is obviously not going to get you a verdict every time. Compare and contrast to Amanda Knox who is probably 20-80. Perfection is a lofty goal. Reminds me of a friend of mine who was a prosecutor coming out of law school and who simply couldn't countenance the notion that sometimes "guilty" people are actually innocent (she had no problem with the "innocent" people are sometimes guilty). Occupational hazard.; 7/6/11, 12:20 AM
Almost Ali said...: Many thanks for noticing, NYTNewYorker; 7/6/11, 12:32 AM
Almost Ali said...: But it was something like 84 searches.

But actually two (2).; 7/6/11, 12:36 AM
Almost Ali said...: By the way, if you want to know how prosecutors think, just listen to Snot-Mom Nancy Grace.; 7/6/11, 12:39 AM
Carol_Herman said...: Nobody wants to be tried in the "courtroom of public opinion."

None of the jurors believed the prosecution's case! They said the prosecution couldn't explain how the kid died!

COULD NOT EXPLAIN IT!

Then the jurors saw the grandpa. His mask must have slipped.

Grandpa wasn't believable. grandpa could have been a molester.

The judge told the defense they couldn't claim Casey was molested "BECAUSE SHE REFUSED TO TAKE THE STAND" ...

Even weakening the defense, the jury didn't believe the prosecutor established that a murder took place.

The stuff that gets left off being taught in law school, just amazes me.

Nothing wrong with today's decision.

While the female talking heads on TV got to plotz when they heard the verdict! How come TV pays money to airheads to root for conviction?

Fake but accurate news reporting.

Which the jurors turned on its head.; 7/6/11, 12:52 AM
Joanna said...: Had her mom been responsible enough to realize that parenthood takes two parents, she could have had a father to protect her from her mother.

Could have had? She DID have.; 7/6/11, 1:06 AM
William said...: I didn't follow the trial. The less I know about how a toddler died the better. You get blindsided by enough depressing crap without actively seeking it on tv......I saw some of the post facto explanations. The mother did something wrong, but who can say it was murder? The mother is an attractive woman and doesn't appear to be a psychopath. I read somewhere that juries are more lenient on attractive defendants and especially with women. They say Cleopatra's nose changed the course of history. A hooked nose and no love affair with Caesar and Mark Anthony....The prosecution should have let the jailers supply her with unlimited mallomars. A fat woman would have been convicted.....Remember the Camus' novel The Stranger. As I recall, he was convicted because he had sex on the day his mother died. We have different ways to grieve. She apparently mourned the death of her child by getting a tattoo and partying. This is strange beyond reason but not strange beyond human.....She got away with something, but I'm not sure what exactly. It's pleasant to think that her guilt will eat away at her and that she will come to a bad end because of that--or, alternately, that she is so fucking psycho she will drive herself off a cliff.; 7/6/11, 1:44 AM
Amy Schley said...: @Joanna,

She obviously had a sperm donor. But did she actually have a second parent raising her? I rather doubt it.; 7/6/11, 2:25 AM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/6/11, 6:06 AM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/6/11, 6:32 AM
Saint Croix said...: She apparently mourned the death of her child by getting a tattoo and partying. This is strange beyond reason but not strange beyond human.....

Most people grieve by having a funeral, and inviting family and friends to grieve with them.

They do not grieve by burying the child in the swamp and keeping it secret.

Oh boo hoo hoo, I miss you and I am sorry you are dead, murder victim I am burying in the swamp, boo hoo hoo.

An innocent mom frantically searches for her missing child. My mom lost me at the mall one time. She flipped out with panic.

This girl was missing for a month and nobody knew about it. Not a peep from mom.

Internet searches on how to kill. "Maybe she was writing a book."

I swear, liberals are so non-judgmental they cannot think at all any more. And their capacity to feel is slim to none.; 7/6/11, 7:03 AM
Erik Robert Nelson said...: "She apparently mourned the death of her child by getting a tattoo and partying. This is strange beyond reason but not strange beyond human...."

Being guilty of relief (even joyful relief) at no longer having a child to care for is repulsive, but understandable at some basic level. It doesn't mean she's guilty of murder, and the prosecution should have known that. They threw a number of narratives out there, none of which the jury could believe beyond a reasonable doubt. And the jury acquitted, as they probably should have. There is nothing surprising about this woman's moral repulsiveness. It's what drove interest in the trial to begin with: the woman was interesting in her repulsiveness. People drew together in their repulsion to pass collective judgment on her. But that's not how the law works, or at least that's not how it should work. It seems to me that the system worked in this case.; 7/6/11, 7:24 AM
Saint Croix said...: Being guilty of relief (even joyful relief) at no longer having a child to care for is repulsive, but understandable at some basic level. It doesn't mean she's guilty of murder, and the prosecution should have known that.

Holy crap, another one.

Why did she lie about her daughter being alive?

Why did she do internet searches on chloroform and neck-breaking?

Why did she borrow a shovel?

Why did her trunk have the smell of a rotting corpse and chemical traces of chloroform?

I'm not judging her soul, I'm judging her missing kid and all the things she did to cover up that disappearance.

People drew together in their repulsion to pass collective judgment on her. But that's not how the law works, or at least that's not how it should work. It seems to me that the system worked in this case.

We pass judgment on what she did, not her.

The failure of people to feel anything about this baby's death, and to let it go, is a testament to our society's lack of concern for babies, and mothers who decide to terminate them. And this feeling comes from the Supreme Court itself. Our apathy about infanticide comes down from on high.

And all the prejudice in this case is on the other side. Pretty girls get away with murder.; 7/6/11, 7:59 AM
Shanna said...: Wow, some very odd thoughts came in here last night. Especially the idea that people who are drawn to these stories are because they secretly wanted to kill their own children. That's a whole lot of armchair psychologist right there.

Particularly if she kills her own child. One of the oldest crimes known to humanity.

Why do you keep saying that as if it actually means something?; 7/6/11, 8:05 AM
Saint Croix said...: Why do you keep saying that as if it actually means something?

I'm one of those annoying pro-lifers who are convinced we are killing our babies.

No evidence of that here, though.; 7/6/11, 8:22 AM
Erik Robert Nelson said...: "Holy crap, another one...."

All I said is that her behavior wasn't enough to convict on its own, despite what some others here have said. As to the other evidence, I tend to think it was enough. None of your other questions speak to the point I raised. The jury didn't think the evidence was enough. That's a fact. As to what *I* think about the evidence, I honestly didn't even know about this case until about three days ago.

"We pass judgment on what she did, not her."

Bullshit, people passed judgement on her specifically. She was a bad mother, therefore guilty of murder. That was enough for some people. All I'm saying is that it isn't enough to convict in a courtroom--a point which should be blazingly obvious, but for some reason isn't.; 7/6/11, 8:31 AM
Shanna said...: I'm one of those annoying pro-lifers who are convinced we are killing our babies.

So am I, but that doesn't have beans to do with "one of the oldest crimes ever"...

This lack of conviction was about the jury not knowing how exactly the baby died. We all know that Casey is an awful mother, acted strangely, was involved, but they ultimately couldn't say HOW she died. That's the problem here.; 7/6/11, 8:38 AM
Shanna said...: One of the oldest crimes known to humanity.

Seriously, this has really nothing to do with anything. They're all old crimes. There is nothing new under the sun. It doesn't have jack to do with why the jury didn't convict.; 7/6/11, 8:40 AM
Erik Robert Nelson said...: "This lack of conviction was about the jury not knowing how exactly the baby died."

It flabbergasts me that some don't understand this simple point. Everything else is just noise. The prosecution failed to provide a keystone here. It's no wonder the case collapsed.; 7/6/11, 9:01 AM
Known Unknown said...: But why is it that the American public seems to become fascinated with these kinds of cases only when a white female is involved?

Because we are still a largely white, female country in which white females watch television?

It's like watching a real-life Law & Order mini series. The fact that's it's real and not scripted isn't that important.

These facts are not that fascinating.; 7/6/11, 9:05 AM
MayBee said...: ""This lack of conviction was about the jury not knowing how exactly the baby died."
"

It flabbergasts me that the jury thought they needed to know exactly how the baby died to convict. They are supposed to put all of the evidence together.; 7/6/11, 9:06 AM
Saint Croix said...: This lack of conviction was about the jury not knowing how exactly the baby died.

Here's the defense argument: "Little girl is discovered dead in the swimming pool and then tape was put over her mouth."

Who believes that? Do you believe that?

To ignore tape over mouth while you struggle with the idea of how a little girl died is bewildering to me.

And the jury's not talking.; 7/6/11, 9:07 AM
Saint Croix said...: There is no way a man could pull this off. Look at that face!

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/casey-anthonys-not-guilty-verdict-summons-oj-memories/39598/

Is that the face of a murderer?

"No!" we say. "No, no, no!" And we let her go.; 7/6/11, 9:20 AM
Shanna said...: Here's the defense argument: "Little girl is discovered dead in the swimming pool and then tape was put over her mouth."

But what is the prosecutions argument? Something happened and we dont' know if it was murder, manslaughter or someone other than Casey being responsible (again either murder or manslaughter) and her covering it up. All of those things carry different penalties! What is the jury supposed to think?; 7/6/11, 9:27 AM
MayBee said...: Something happened and we dont' know if it was murder, manslaughter or someone other than Casey being responsible (again either murder or manslaughter) and her covering it up. All of those things carry different penalties! What is the jury supposed to think?

They are supposed to decide if it was murder or manslaughter. That's their job.
They put it together with the internet searches, her car smelling like death, her abandoning her car, her hiding from her parents, her lying to law enforcement after her mom called 911 after 31 days, her pretending she would introduce law enforcement to the babysitter, her talking to her parents on the jailhouse phone and poo-pooing the idea there was an accident. That and her daughter in a bag in a swamp.; 7/6/11, 9:34 AM
Almost Ali said...: What I take away from this trial is the image of "Laughing Man," a prosecutor so inept he believes in murder-by-magic.

And deadhead Woman, ever thankful to be a government worker because her only other options were the bread line or food stamps.

And the liberal media, who in the end were left standing at the alter holding nothing but their wilted phallics.; 7/6/11, 10:07 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Pastafarian, the most likely explanation is the mom was negligent and the child drowned in the pool as a result. Then mom tried to hide the evidence and lied to the police. That is negligent homicide.

The jury would have likely convicted her for that. She would have gotten around 10 years for it. Instead they wanted to make names for themselves...and they truly did.; 7/6/11, 10:59 AM
LilEvie said...: Casey 3.0 = OJ2

The case was lost in voir dire - hello!

Judge can't find jurors, he's in a hurry, disallows protests for a lady who "doesn't like to judge others", 2 arrestees for DUI and paraphernalia, and a guy leaving on a cruise 7/7 - how convenient. Bet that 30ish single coach thinks Casey is hot!

And Baez/Bozo throws penises up on the wall -- they did it! -- and it sticks.

Casey did computer searches for chloroform and neck-breaking, she had sole access to Caylee, the clothes, the duct tape, laundry bag, and death car. That's not a case -- NOT GUILTY!

Runaway jury runs away like a bunch of dirty birds, ran for the bus and far away home.

Scott Peterson went fishing at the Berkeley marina the day his wife went missing, months later a skull washes up, that's a case -- GUILTY!
He's a cheater and a creep, case closed.

I like Carol Herman.; 7/6/11, 11:53 AM
Revenant said...: They put it together with the internet searches, her car smelling like death, her abandoning her car, her hiding from her parents, her lying to law enforcement after her mom called 911 after 31 days, her pretending she would introduce law enforcement to the babysitter, her talking to her parents on the jailhouse phone and poo-pooing the idea there was an accident. That and her daughter in a bag in a swamp.

Let's delete, from that, the elements adequately explained by she or someone close to her having illegally disposed of her daughter's body after an accidental death -- i.e., the stuff Casey admitted to. What's left?

They put it together with the internet searches,

That's it -- internet searches for stuff with no proven link to her daughter's death. You can't get to manslaughter that way, let alone murder. Sure, murder or manslaughter are the most likely explanations, but they aren't even close to being the only plausible explanations.; 7/6/11, 12:08 PM
Revenant said...: Here's the defense argument: "Little girl is discovered dead in the swimming pool and then tape was put over her mouth."

Well, no; the defense claimed that the guy who found the body had tampered with it.; 7/6/11, 12:10 PM
Trooper York said...: Why do yo think it got fuck up?

With lawyers involved how could it not?; 7/6/11, 12:23 PM
Methadras said...: Casey Anthony formed such a massive cocoon of lies that trying to get to the core of the truth was pointless. Did she kill her daughter on purpose or was it an accident? No one will ever know. The state tried to paint her as a wanton killer who only sought the affections of men and the child got in the way of her ability to debauch herself for fun and pleasure. This ran counter to several testimonies that she was a good mother. So how does a good mother go bad? Is it for the affections of men that the kid got in the way of that? I just don't see that here. The tapes clearly show a mother who loved her child and a family that loved this child.

But what the trial clearly showed was a family torn apart by this woman's spoiled nature and how she's been able to get away with being a liar, a thief, and a criminal in general with respect to how she treated her friends and family. Did she graduate to murder? The prosecution would have you think so, but the defense outside of offering that she drowned in the pool couldn't prove it, but at the same time the state couldn't prove that she killed her child or how she did it.

The circumstantial evidence notwithstanding clearly points in the direction of someone in that family knowing what happened. I'd say the grandmother is absolved of it only because of her overall reaction to finding out her granddaughter was missing unreported for 31 days and the initial reaction of the smell of decomposition coming from the trunk. So that leaves the brother, the father, and the Casey.

The father seems like an asshole, but that isn't enough to be a murderer or hide a murder. Could he have found the body of the child and helped his daughter to dispose of it? Not likely. Two reasons why. The first is that he is an ex-police officer and that is his granddaughter who by all accounts he doted on constantly and consistently. He loved her very much from all accounts including his own. So he would have, I believe, would have tried CPR, called 911 and that child would have been rushed to the hospital and most likely declared dead. Even the statistics in the state of Florida bear this out. 99.99% of accidental drowning’s are reported via 911 and are almost always ruled accidents. So why didn’t it happen here? Because most likely the child didn’t drown. So most likely the George Anthony wasn’t involved and if he was, he would have had to find the child or done it himself, dressed her in the clothes found on her, wrap her in the blanket found on her, put her in the laundry bag and wrap her up in 3 garbage bags and then dump her in the little forested area near their home. This would describe why she was missing for so long, but not why the smell of decomposition in the trunk of Casey’s car was there and including why 2 cadaver dogs hit in the trunk and in the back yard.

Is it the brother? I’d say not likely. He seems like the odd man out in that family. He wept on the stand that he wasn’t even told properly about his sister’s pregnancy which appears the family actively hid from him. Why? Why would a family hide a pregnancy from one of their own? Is it because he might because angry that his sister is a trampish whore who will get on her back for any Tom, Harry, or Dick? Was his emotional state due to jealousy perhaps? Odd behavior that’s for sure, but not worthy of being a murder in my opinion. He clearly loves his sister, has been ruled out of being the father of the child along with George Anthony and is willing to endure her lies to some extent. The phone calls prove that. Would he have had a vested interest in killing his niece? What would he have had to gain by it? I say nothing.

cont...; 7/6/11, 1:42 PM
Methadras said...: So that leaves the mother Casey Anthony. She was last seen with the child. She had the car that was abandoned that spelled of decomposition in the trunk. No one saw her for long stretches at a time. She lied about where she worked and where she was. She had issues with both parents. She was willful and arrogant and used lying as a means to thwart them at nearly every turn. She even lied about who the father of her child was and still no one knows or will ever know. Although, no one I know has posited that the photos of her partying and getting the bella vita tattoo really could have been nothing because someone could really have been watching that child while she was out having a good time. Estimates place the body in the trunk at 3 – 5 days. She could have chloroformed her kid as a means to induce lengthy periods of unconsciousness while doing whatever, she does from overdosing and Casey sets about trying to dispose of the body in the only way she knows how, which is to lie about it, but since the evidence doesn’t show that and since the prosecution never posits this idea as a means of murder, the jury was left with no other option given the reasonable doubt theory.

The prosecution couldn’t place her at the scene of the crime, they couldn’t place her as the actual participant in the crime, there is no DNA to put her there. There is no one to finger her in saying that they saw her do it. The family saw or knows nothing. This crime occurred in a total vacuum and unfortunately the jury was unwilling or unable to say with equivocation that she was the murderer of her only child and so the only option left was acquittal on those charges. Lying to the police 4 times was sufficient to convict her with, but murder? No. I may have done the same thing to be honest.; 7/6/11, 1:43 PM
Methadras said...: I want to know if George Anthony will sue for defamation against lawyer Baez for claiming he's a child molester of his own daughter without proof.; 7/6/11, 1:46 PM
Fred4Pres said...: This is a pretty good reaction to the verdict.; 7/6/11, 2:06 PM
MayBee said...: Let's delete, from that, the elements adequately explained by she or someone close to her having illegally disposed of her daughter's body after an accidental death -- i.e., the stuff Casey admitted to. What's left?

No need to delete anything. It is all of a piece. You take everything together.

BTW, Casey did not admit to anything. She did not testify. Her defense attorney made a claim on her behalf that her father witnessed a drowning. His testimony was that no such thing happened. It was a suggestion with no proof. She, on the other hand, was the one known to be driving the car at the time it smelled like death. The defense tried to say the car smelled from garbage, not from someone else driving the car with Caylee's body in it.
Furthermore, six months ago Casey Anthony's attorneys were prepared to make the claim that Roy Kronk kidnapped and killed Caylee. That she witnessed a drowning is a recent recollection.; 7/6/11, 2:14 PM
MayBee said...: This ran counter to several testimonies that she was a good mother.

In public she was seen as a good mother, but she made up an entire web of lies that covered the fact that she was leaving her daughter....somewhere. That's what the Zanny the Nanny lie was. Casey left Caylee with Grandma when Casey had to work- even though Casey didn't really have a job. Casey left Caylee with Zanny the Nanny when Grandma wasn't available. She'd been doing that for 2.5 years. But Zanny didn't exist. So where was Caylee?; 7/6/11, 2:23 PM
Almost Ali said...: From Twitter:

"Listen, have any of you Casey Anthony haters graduated high school? How about middle school? Okay, have u ever had to make change in a 7-11?"; 7/6/11, 2:24 PM
Fred Drinkwater said...: Hmm. My entire exposure to this case consists of watching ten minutes of the defense summation on TV at my dad's. I had zero prior knowledge of the case, and the defense attorney's rambling style convinced me that his defense was going to go down in flames. Also, I was wondering who that woman was in the video inset, and what her relationship to the guy "Casey Anthony" might be.

On the up side, I finished finding a new job, and start today. So there is that.; 7/6/11, 2:57 PM
mariner said...: JAL,
Question: Who on this list has searched for "chloroform" on the internet? How many times?

I have. (yesterday)

I didn't think it could be made outside a lab or industrial facility, and apparently that's right.

I didn't know it is used as a solvent, and I had forgotten that it was once used as an anesthetic.; 7/6/11, 3:12 PM
mariner said...: Pastafarian,
Should Perry run, we'll certainly hear more about how juries can be fallible, when they convict an innocent man (seems to always be a man) and send him to his death.

And Perry should know. He was governor when this atrocity occurred:

Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?; 7/6/11, 3:17 PM
Saint Croix said...: the defense claimed that the guy who found the body had tampered with it.

Just to be clear, then, the guy who found the dead body put tape over the little girl's mouth?

Why?

And how did he go back in time so that the tape would not be a recent addition?

Or is your theory that he found the drowned-in-a-swimming-pool-and-buried-in-the-swamp girl 30 days before he reported it? He found the body, put tape on her mouth because he's fucking insane like an internet poster, waited 30 days and then called the cops?; 7/6/11, 3:50 PM
Revenant said...: Furthermore, six months ago Casey Anthony's attorneys were prepared to make the claim that Roy Kronk kidnapped and killed Caylee. That she witnessed a drowning is a recent recollection.

Even if the jury was aware of that (and so far as I know they weren't), that can be explained by Casey not having initially told her lawyers about the drowning. Or the lawyer thought up the drowning theory too and didn't even ask Casey about it, or a different family member told them about it. You expect the jury to invent its own explanation for the evidence; why can't a defense attorney do the same thing?

The evidence you keep citing builds a damning case that Caylee's dead body was kept in the car for days and then dumped. That does not prove manslaughter -- and it argues *against* premeditated murder, since it requires us to believe the murder was planned for months but no thought at all was given to alibi or disposal.; 7/6/11, 6:53 PM
Revenant said...: Just to be clear, then, the guy who found the dead body put tape over the little girl's mouth?

She wasn't found with tape over her mouth. She was found with duct tape attached to her jawbone. "She had duct tape over her mouth when she died" was the prosecution witnesses' theory. The defense forensic witness testified that the duct tape was placed there after death, perhaps to hold the jaw in place for transport.; 7/6/11, 7:11 PM
MayBee said...: and it argues *against* premeditated murder, since it requires us to believe the murder was planned for months but no thought at all was given to alibi or disposal.

No it doesn't. I just means the body started smelling awful before Casey could find a good place or time to dump it.

What do you mean no thought to alibi? She had a plan. She hid from her parents and then said her daughter was kidnapped by a babysitter she'd completely made up 2.5 years ago. That's a plan.; 7/6/11, 7:51 PM
PJHJD said...: SIR THOMAS MORE: Go he should. If he were the devil himself, until he broke the law.

WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!; 7/6/11, 8:35 PM
Saint Croix said...: The defense forensic witness testified that the duct tape was placed there after death, perhaps to hold the jaw in place for transport.

So her 2-year-old drowned in the swimming pool. Mom's completely innocent.

Now here's what your innocent person did next.

She taped the dead kid's mouth shut for "transport."

She put her dead child in the trunk of her car. And kept it there until it stunk.

She dumped her daughter in the swamp.

Then she lied, lied, lied to everyone and tried to cover up this dead body for 30 days.

That's your theory?

Is that how innocent people behave?

Or would an innocent person call 911, frantic, like this: "Help! I think my daughter drowned in the pool!"

To acquit you have to have a doubt that is based on rational thought.; 7/6/11, 9:33 PM
Almost Ali said...: Another tweet from Twitter:

"Meanwhile, a great day as *Laughing Man* Jeffy Ashton went on TV and showed the world why he couldn't lawyer himself out of a paper bag."; 7/6/11, 10:03 PM
jr565 said...: This is an example of a jury of retards, who can't think logically, though perhaps the prosecution also overcharged.
A few points (and I only started following the trial recently). There was an incident where someone looked up how to make clorophorm on the web prior to the death. Then the mother stepped forward and said that it was her. In was then revealed that it couldn't be her because she was at work at the time. But that doesn't negate that someone looked up how to make chloroform on their home pc. So then, if it wasn't the moterh, and the mother is lying about it to protect her daughter, shouldn't a jury think logically about that "Fact"? If it wasn't the mother, then it had to be the daughter. Then WHY was the daughter looking up how to make chloroform.
Also, she, for an entire month lied and said that her daughter was with some mythical babysitter. Just saying that she is prone to lying, because her father molested her doesn't answer why someone would logically lie, if they didn't know where the daughter was, that they did know where there daughter was and make up a story about a baby sitter who wasn't actually watching her baby. That, actually prevented her daughter from being found and led cops on a goose chase. What is her motivation for behaving so erratically? IS she bat shit insane?
Well, if its been established that she is a liar, and prone to acting crazy ,that doesn't actually, or shouldn't actually help the defenses case, since after all she is an admitted and proven liar (and slut).
And, what was especially unconscionable was having her defense atty suggest that her father was molesting her since she was 8. That has to be one of the foulest things I've ever heard a lawyer do, and not provide one single shred of evidence when doing so. The jury should have asked why the defense was suggesting that the father was a molester.
Yet, if you ask the jury, no one believed that that story was actually true. THe few jurors who spoke all said that they didnt' buy that there was murder, but thought that there was something that went horribly wrong and then good people tried to I guess cover it up. Ok, fine, but then that means that they agreed taht Casey was involved in a scheme to deliberately lie about her role in the death of her daughter, and that means that they saw her defense attys deliberately try to pin the death on someone else to save her own skin.; 7/6/11, 10:05 PM
jr565 said...: Maybee wrote:
and it argues *against* premeditated murder, since it requires us to believe the murder was planned for months but no thought at all was given to alibi or disposal.

Except she was lying to cops for months, knowing that the child was already dead. So, then apparently, plenty of thought was given to the alibi. SHe couldn't have done it, because Kalley wasn't dead. SHe was with the baby sitter. You'd have to explain the rationale for someone who is not guilty pretending that her child isn't even dead yet.; 7/6/11, 10:07 PM
JAL said...: Congratulations on your new job Fred. Hope it goes well, meets your needs, and matches your gifts.

Wonder how Lem in doing on The Hunt.

Lem? You out there tonight?; 7/6/11, 10:13 PM
jr565 said...: Erik wrote:
xxBeing guilty of relief (even joyful relief) at no longer having a child to care for is repulsive, but understandable at some basic level. It doesn't mean she's guilty of murder, and the prosecution should have known that. They threw a number of narratives out there, none of which the jury could believe beyond a reasonable doubt.

But then she'd have to at least know that the child was dead, right? ANd not only did she party and get tatoos, she also lied to the cops for more than a month by telling them that the child was still alive and staying with a baby sitter. So then she has to at least be guilty of knowing her child is dead, and preventing cops from actually recovering her body. YOu want to say she was guilty of covering up her daughters death? There is no reasonable doubt that would explain her various actions, other than that she either killed her daughter or covered up her daughters death. None. Zero. Zilch. Saying her father molested her, does not explain her actions, which. unless she is a schizophrenic, portray someone engaging in subterfuge to prevent her daughter from being found. Even if you want to simply say that the kid fell in the pool and drowned, rather than tell the cops that, she instead put the body in a car and then dumped it in a swamp,then told cops and people looking for the body for months that she was with a baby sitter. What kind of person does that?
So again, it's not just acting callously, it's acting with intent to hide her daughters body, or cover up her death, despite the fact that people are on the streets looking for her for months. If that were true, that is beyond callous.; 7/6/11, 10:21 PM
Almost Ali said...: Has anyone here ever tried to whip up a batch of chloroform in their kitchen sink?; 7/6/11, 10:21 PM
MayBee said...: jr565- I was quoting someone else in the part you attributed to me. I think you and I agree.; 7/6/11, 10:24 PM
MayBee said...: jr565:
So then, if it wasn't the moterh, and the mother is lying about it to protect her daughter, shouldn't a jury think logically about that "Fact"?

I really thought the jury would see that as a huge red flag. Obviously Casey's mother thinks Casey is guilty enough to get on the stand and lie for her.
And yet even she wouldn't say the baby had drowned in the pool. She would lie to save her daughter, but she wouldn't tell the truth to save her?; 7/6/11, 10:30 PM
jr565 said...: Methadras wrote:
The prosecution couldn’t place her at the scene of the crime, they couldn’t place her as the actual participant in the crime, there is no DNA to put her there. There is no one to finger her in saying that they saw her do it. The family saw or knows nothing. This crime occurred in a total vacuum and unfortunately the jury was unwilling or unable to say with equivocation that she was the murderer of her only child and so the only option left was acquittal on those charges.

Well, the reason that no one could place her at the scene of the crime is because Casey lied about her daughters disappearance for monthis and she wound up in a swamp and was found in a decomposed state. But did the crime REALLY occur in a vacuum. Not even the defense suggests that. They suggested that the father found the body in the pool and that he and Casey then covered it up. If the allegation is that hte father is complicit in the coverup, then clearly the family AND CASEY know a hell of a lot. That would mean that for 6 months, every action on their parts was a lie. So, even by the defenses arguments you can say that Casey was an actual participant in a crime. Namely, covering up the death of her daughter for 6 months. And even if you say there is no DNA evidence, the assertions of the defense place her there.
Do you deny that?; 7/6/11, 10:36 PM
Almost Ali said...: Well, does anyone here own a kitchen sink?; 7/6/11, 10:36 PM
Almost Ali said...: Okay, let's try a different tact:

Has anyone here ever tried to whip up a batch of trichloromethane outside of a laboratory?; 7/6/11, 10:56 PM
jr565 said...: Hey Maybee,
Sorry, you're right. I totally attributed a quote you had made, to you accidentally. You are a voice of reason here.; 7/6/11, 11:20 PM
jr565 said...: Erik wrote:
Bullshit, people passed judgement on her specifically. She was a bad mother, therefore guilty of murder. That was enough for some people. All I'm saying is that it isn't enough to convict in a courtroom--a point which should be blazingly obvious, but for some reason isn't.

I think, in fact, people passed judgement on Casey because of her actions and concluded that she was guilty of murder and also a bad mother because of them. And why not?
Lets go back to the timeline and not even delve into all the various stories. Her parents became concerned that something had happened to Casey because her car was found in Orlando when she was supposed to be in Jacksonville. It was the parents that triggered the suspicion, which at the very least suggests that the parents weren't aware of Caylee's whereabouts or what their daughter was up to. THen on July 15th, 15 days later Casy's mom calls the cops and says that Caylee is missing.
Then on the 16th Casey is arrested and tells cops that a babysitter named Zanny kidnapped her. This person did not exist. She also told the tale TO HER PARENTS, that Caylee was in Jacosnville with a rich boyfriend, and was not true.
On June 9th, prior to the arrest, she tells her parents that she is dropping Casey off at this fictitious baby sitters house, because she has a business trip for Universal Studios, though she doesn't in fact work at Universal Studios. See, how she doesn't have one lie but multiple lies,even before Casey winds up dead? How do you explain that if she is a good mother and her daughter actually winds up in a swamp in a plastic bag. What motivation does she have to lie at that point? I would argue that it's pretty apparent that Caylee is already dead. The most damaging lie, is the one about dropping Caylee off with the babysitter on the 9th? Why? Because there is no such baby sitter. If she's lying about dropping off her baby at someone's house, and that person doesn't exist, and this lie is told before her parents even call the cops about Caylee being missing which wont happen for another month, that is is highly suggestive that Caylee is trying to establish an alibi. But for what? Her parents haven't even said that her daughter was missing yet, and she already has her being sent to a fictitiuos persons house.
When the cops question Casey, she immediately accuses someone who is real, but who she has never met before of having her kid. The cops go so far as to say, at the time of arrest ""Based on the repetitive lies that the defendant has told, we do not know with whom the child is or even if the child is alive," "It should be noted that at no time during any of the above interviews did the defendant show any obvious emotion as to the loss of her child."
On the most basic level, there would be no reason to lie about any of this unless she had some involvement in her daughters disappearance. So why then make up these elaborate stories, when it comes to her daughter who her mother thinks is missing? Why say she knows Zenaida who isn't real has her kid, rather than saying she doesn't know what happened to her?; 7/7/11, 12:08 AM
jr565 said...: In her jail conversation with friends and mothers, her sister or friend basically breaks down and says she would die if something happened to Casey she would die.
Then Casey says "calling you guys is a waste."
THen her sister/friend says: "Well how come everyone is saying you're lying?
Casey: They're going to pin this on me and got all therir info from me and are twisting things (paraphrasing)
Freind/sister (? not sure): Yeah, because they said that the person you said Cayley was with doesn't exist.
Casey: Because, Oh look, they can't find her in the Florida database, she's not just from Florida. If they would actually listen to anything I would have said to them they would have had their lead and maybe could have tracked her down. They haven't listened to a think I've said... The only way they are going to find Caley is if they actually listen to what I'm saying. I'm trying to help them and they're not letting me help them... They need to look up her information in the other various databases etc etc etc..."

Notice how emphatic she is that this woman, who doesn't exist in fact had Caylee. She's trying to pin the disappearance on this person. Now, why would someone who says they don't really know what happened to their daughter suggest a story that was so patently untrue? She's literally trying to provide information that will give the police the clues they need to find her daughter, and yet the story she is telling involves someone that is a figment of her imagination. Why would an innocent person do this?
Saying that she is a liar because her dad molested her doesn't answer why she would conceivably lie to cops at this particular situation, and so emphatically to boot? If anything, she sounds pretty sure that this person, who she left her kid with has her kid. She even lays out a story whereby she tried to contact this person (who doesn't exist) but doesn't have any of the numbers.
Someone who didn't know where her daughter was wouldn't, if they were a good mother, misdirect police so they don't look for her daughter, but instead send them out to look for a phantom?
And if the parents were in on it, why wouldn't they come up with a consistent storyline that made sense with caylee's own statements?
Everyone sounds completely surprised and not sure what happened with Caylee, yet Casey is SURE that this woman has her, and has had her for a month. On the police call where the mother is asking for Casey to be arreseted she starts breaking down about what happened to her granddaughter, and Casey apparently tells her at that moment that she's been kidnapped. If the mother was involved ahead of time, why would they have her create a story that casts doubts on casey's own account. And when casey's friend is asking why the cops are saying that Casey is lying in the linked conversation, why is everyone on the other end unsure about what is hapening, and why is Casey sure that it's this imaginary person and that she's already given the cops the clues they need to find this nonexistent person?
The idea that Casey wasn't involved makes no logical sense. She simply wouldn't tell the story about the baby sitter, if she really thought her baby was kidnapped. She knew waht happened even before her mother called the cops. According to Casey, she was missing for a month at that point.; 7/7/11, 12:33 AM
jr565 said...: Sorry, forgot to post the link of her conversation:

http://investigation.discovery.com/blogs/criminal-report/audio/CaseyAnthonyjailcall.mp3; 7/7/11, 12:36 AM
Revenant said...: No it doesn't. I just means the body started smelling awful before Casey could find a good place or time to dump it.

"Couldn't find a good time"? She was unemployed and had her own car. Furthermore, she set the schedule. As for "couldn't find a good place" -- exactly. So she supposedly spent three months planning a complicated murder with home-made chemicals, but never took the time to figure out what to do with the body.

What do you mean no thought to alibi? She had a plan.

Oh, please. She waited a month before calling the cops. That's not a plan. That's living in denial -- hoping that if you just ignore the problem it'll go away.; 7/7/11, 5:04 AM
Revenant said...: That's your theory? Is that how innocent people behave?

Your story is approximately 1/3 prosecution witness theories, 1/3 fact, and 1/3 invented by you.; 7/7/11, 5:12 AM
Revenant said...: So, even by the defenses arguments you can say that Casey was an actual participant in a crime.

Sure, just not the ones she was charged with.

Which is why it isn't helpful to say stuff like "does an innocent person do X" -- the defense's story is that she IS guilty, just not of the particular crime she's charged with. Presto, a ready-made reason to lie to the cops about where her daughter is.

Now, do I find her story likely? No. But it is certainly possible, and in the absence of any actual evidence of murder or manslaughter "possible" is good enough for reasonable doubt.; 7/7/11, 5:19 AM
Shanna said...: That would mean that for 6 months, every action on their parts was a lie.

Which is why the jury convicted her for lying.

Even if you want to simply say that the kid fell in the pool and drowned, rather than tell the cops that, she instead put the body in a car and then dumped it in a swamp,then told cops and people looking for the body for months that she was with a baby sitter. What kind of person does that?

An awful, irresponsible person. A person who was possibly neglectful and afraid that she would go to jail. She got rid of the body and tried to throw off the cops. That is at least plausible.

We were talking the other day at work about accidental drowning and my coworker had a friend whose child fell in the bathtub, hit their head, and died. A total accident and the mother was distraught, but she still had child services investigating for months. Throw in a bad character, real neglect, and the stupidity and carelessness of Casey Anthony and you could very easily have this scenario.

Oh, please. She waited a month before calling the cops. That's not a plan. That's living in denial -- hoping that if you just ignore the problem it'll go away.

Exactly. That actually fits with partying and all that as well to me. Pretending it didn’t happen.; 7/7/11, 7:05 AM
Almost Ali said...: Okay, how about this:

Would you buy a used car from Nancy Grace?; 7/7/11, 7:47 AM
Almost Ali said...: ... or a magic-set from Jeff Ashton?; 7/7/11, 7:49 AM
Almost Ali said...: In a related question, has 911 ever raised someone, anyone, from the dead.; 7/7/11, 7:54 AM
MayBee said...: "Couldn't find a good time"? She was unemployed and had her own car. Furthermore, she set the schedule. As for "couldn't find a good place" -- exactly.

It's what people do. People do premeditated murder by shooting someone in broad daylight and then thinking they can run away fast enough. People, in general, think it's going to be much easier to get away with what their plan than it ends up being.
She killed her daughter and thought she'd be able to carry the body around with her and dump her at a convenient time. But maybe there were always people around when she went to get the body out of the trunk, or maybe digging a hole big enough (remember she borrowed a shovel) was harder than she thought, or maybe she thought she'd burn Casey's body (she stole gas cans from her father) but it grossed her out more than she thought.

A bad plan is not the same as not having a plan. I know a woman who killed her husband. Originally, she thought she'd be able to make it look like a heart attack, but that didn't work. So then she decided to have his body shipped, along with some other things, back to her vacation home. In the meantime, she told friends her husband was away on work and she told his work (when they called looking for him) that he had left her.
Of course, the plan to move his body didn't work because he started stinking. And the plan to buy time with the lies about his location didn't work because the people at work couldn't get ahold of him.

Bad planning is what real people do when they plan murders. That's why they end up getting caught and going through trial.; 7/7/11, 8:56 AM
MayBee said...: In a related question, has 911 ever raised someone, anyone, from the dead.

Someone who appears to have drowned can be resuscitated, yes.; 7/7/11, 9:00 AM