Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder

[Donald Duck]

Tape wasn't stuck to the mouth? Again, I defer back to my common sense. The tape wasn't stuck to the mouth because there wasn't any skin left for it to stick to. And, it certainly was stuck to the mouth at one point because it was still stuck to her hair. Why would anyone put duct tape over the mouth of a 3 year old girl that accidentally drowned in a swimming pool?

 

The tape was traced back to both Casey and George. They both lived in the same house.

 

As far as the car goes, it had plenty of evidence. Who testified that the car didn't smell like human decomp? Cindy? Nope. George? Nope. Cops? Nope. Tow truck driver? Nope. Dr who is expert in human decomp? Nope. All said it smelled overwhelmingly like human decomp.

 

Can you explain why it was ditched the way it was? The only plausible explanation that fits with everything else is that she was trying to cover up the smell of her dead daughter that was in the trunk.

The car was out of gas (If I'm not mistaken)

 

You can't convict someone with smell Sig1, a rotten potato smells just like decomposition and a dead animal probably comes real close.Nobody is trying to say the body wasn't discarded under sinister circumstances, but it doesn't show cause of death or who put the remains where they were found.

 

What happened to the duct tape used to tie the bag shut? What would happen If an animal tore the bag open at the top and started pulling body parts out?Are you saying its not possible tape could have become tangled while that was happening?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton

[NoSaint]

I agree with the last two posters. A lawyer friend of mine said there more than enough to convict, but now jurors have watched too much CSI stuff and want to see something like a DNA smoking gun or something.

 

I was very frustrated watching dateline tonight- they had a guy (alternate juror?) who had comments like "so what if the air in the trunk had decomposition chemicals, there wasn't any blood" and he had one for every single bit of clear evidence.

[Adam]

If Casey did it, I highly doubt that she is the one who disposed of the body

[NoSaint]

You can't convict someone with smell Sig1, a rotten potato smells just like decomposition and a dead animal probably comes real close.Nobody is trying to say the body wasn't discarded under sinister circumstances, but it doesn't show cause of death or who put the remains where they were found.

 

What happened to the duct tape used to tie the bag shut? What would happen If an animal tore the bag open at the top and started pulling body parts out?Are you saying its not possible tape could have become tangled while that was happening?

 

They had a scientist chemically analyze the trunk and they found that it had chemicals consistent with human decomp not food. Just saying.

 

First, like many, I think the jury in this case did their job, and the case made by the state was not strong enough to sentence this woman to death. I have very little doubt that she was involved, somehow, in her daughters death. And, I agree, taking the chance of sentencing someone to life in prison, or death, when there is the chance that they might be innocent, no matter how small that chance, is vital. But, I keep hearing this rote response that "better to let one guilty person go, than sentence an innocent person". That would be great, if it meant that letting this one person, possibly slide, does nothing to ensure that an innocent person will not be found guilty...I just think it is a silly response. One case has nothing to do with another.

 

 

 

And that is one of the fugged up things about this case. One of the jurors admits, he couldn't get the idea of George Anthony sexually abusing his daughter, out of his head. The defense laid out this theory, and did not have one shred of evidence to back it up, not even circumstantial evidence, other than the word of their client, who they are admitting, is truth challenged. But it tainted GA's testimony...I know, it is up to the state to make their case for guilt, but the defense, IMO, was not held to any level of responsibility.

 

 

1)when they all have to meet the same relative benchmark they tend to be related. That said, a bum jury, lawyer, judge could change that but trials are part of a justice system that is very consistent over time in large numbers.

 

2)they didn't even have the clients word on it as she didnt testify! I can't believe that was a real theory the could throw out there with absolutely nothing grounding it in evidence or testimony.

[bbb]

Lets hear the evidence

 

The duct tape that was traced back to George Anthony? Or the single marker found on the duct tape that didn't match Casey or the victim? Or the heart shape on the duct tape that magically disappears? Or all the coffin flies that should have been in the trunk ,but weren't? Or the stain of decomposition in the trunk you couldn't see or test positive for? We have a compromised crime scene that couldn't be relied upon. Bogus testimony from kronk the person that found Caylee's remains.(skulls originally out of the bag in August,then its in the bag in December, oops that doesn't work, its back out of the bag) We have George and Cindy Anthony who both lied on the stand. We have George faking a suicide, his reasoning, so he can go see Caylee in heaven. Well thats not going to happen now is it.

 

The list goes on and on, there was no evidence, no cause of death and anybody that watched 100% of this trial knows it.

 

I watched 0%, so I'm out.

[Donald Duck]

They had a scientist chemically analyze the trunk and they found that it had chemicals consistent with human decomp not food. Just saying.

I agree with part of your statement, key words, consistent with, just like rotting raw meat would be consistent with decomp

Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton

[Donald Duck]

If Casey did it, I highly doubt that she is the one who disposed of the body

 

If George Anthony molested/killed Caylee,the pieces would all fall into place much better then they do with Casey. Explains why George was hell bent on framing Casey and why he didn't want her body examined any time soon. It also explains the suicide because he thought they were closing in on him. If Casey wanted Caylee dead why not just drown her, then say it was an accident. Instead shes going to sufficate her, dispose of her body 15 houses away, leave her body with tape on it so it gets traced back to her, motive, so she can live the good life. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

 

The jurors didn't come right out and say it, but they believed George was involved in my opinion.

[Adam]

If George Anthony molested/killed Caylee,the pieces would all fall into place much better then they do with Casey. Explains why George was hell bent on framing Casey and why he didn't want her body examined any time soon. It also explains the suicide because he thought they were closing in on him. If Casey wanted Caylee dead why not just drown her, then say it was an accident. Instead shes going to sufficate her, dispose of her body 15 houses away, leave her body with tape on it so it gets traced back to her, motive, so she can live the good life. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

 

The jurors didn't come right out and say it, but they believed George was involved in my opinion.

I was thinking that if Casey did it, she is likely to be a sociopath. If that is the case, it is doubtful that she would feel the need to hide the evidence, as she wouldn't think she did anything wrong in the first place.

 

In that case, someone was trying to cover it up for her and her parents are the prime suspects.

[Donald Duck]

I was thinking that if Casey did it, she is likely to be a sociopath. If that is the case, it is doubtful that she would feel the need to hide the evidence, as she wouldn't think she did anything wrong in the first place.

 

In that case, someone was trying to cover it up for her and her parents are the prime suspects.

 

 

Its possible, and I would be lying If I said I didn't think Casey had anything to do with it. Casey was probably knocking little Caylee out so she could party and Caylee overdosed/died. Its rumored Zanny the nanny was slang for Xanax.

 

I just didn't see enough evidence to reach a guilty verdict, especially when someones life is on the line.

[Bufcomments]

Have to admit I watched most of the trial. Was just as good or better than OJ's.

 

Seems to me Casey killed that poor girl. Lying to the police and sending them on wild goose chases. Lying to her parents time and time again about what happened to Caylee. Stealing checks from family members. This kid is a bad seed and her parents knew it. I don't think her father helped her out but he prolly put 1+1 together and figured it out.

Maybe the thought of his daughter facing the Death sentence and his granddaughters death was enough to push him to kill himself.

 

If you believe in karma Casey will get hers.

 

As a matter of fact the police just may try to recoup some of the money spent on the search for Caylee. I hope they pinch her hard for any money that she may make because of this .

[Donald Duck]

Have to admit I watched most of the trial. Was just as good or better than OJ's.

 

Seems to me Casey killed that poor girl. Lying to the police and sending them on wild goose chases. Lying to her parents time and time again about what happened to Caylee. Stealing checks from family members. This kid is a bad seed and her parents knew it. I don't think her father helped her out but he prolly put 1+1 together and figured it out.

Maybe the thought of his daughter facing the Death sentence and his granddaughters death was enough to push him to kill himself.

 

If you believe in karma Casey will get hers.

 

As a matter of fact the police just may try to recoup some of the money spent on the search for Caylee. I hope they pinch her hard for any money that she may make because of this .

 

I agree Bufcomments, it was just as good or better then the OJ trial

 

Instead of "If it doesn't fit,you must acquit" We have "somethings just not right here"

Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton

[Arkady Renko]

You cannot look at each piece of evidence in a vacuum and then say, well here is some possible alternative explanation for this piece of evidence, let's move on to the next piece of evidence. You need to look at the entire picture that is painted and ask yourself when you put it all together it is reasonable to doubt that she murdered her daughter.

 

She tried lie after lie to explain her daughter's disappearance. Eventually, after a couple years, she came up with a tale that was implausible but not impossible. Is doing that enough now to get people off for murder? Just about any murder case could be explained by some implausible alternate tale. Supposedly this was an accident that was made to look like a murder? When is that ever done unless to frame someone? And why would they do that? Children drown in pools frequently. And her father, who helped secure her representation in the first place, would prefer her daughter be convicted of capital murder than to admit that he helped cover up an accident?

 

Again, I will reiterate that people are convicted of murder frequently when a body is not even found. Her daughter was missing for a month while she was partying and acting as if nothing was wrong. It was not until her mother called the police that Caylee was reported missing. Casey Anthony ditched her car, which smelled, according to multiple people, like a rotting corpse. There was evidence of decomposition in the car. Because there could have been more evidence of decomposition, that should allow you to doubt the rest?

 

Some of the jurors and others focused on the fact that a motive was not proven. First of all, that is not even an element of the crime the prosecution needs to prove. Secondly, the prosecution provided one that was totally consistent with Casey Anthony's actions and her behavior. Some expert referred vaguely to people mourning differently after certain traumatic events. It is telling that this expert had not even interviewed Casey Anthony to provide any support that the theory was relevant to this case.

Edited July 9, 2011 by johnnyb

[Beerball]

Casey declines a visit from mom. I think she disapproves of all the lies and outlandish tales that mom & dad told on the stand.

[Terry Tate]

If George Anthony molested/killed Caylee,the pieces would all fall into place much better then they do with Casey.

 

*deep breath* HAHAHAHAHAHA! (I'm sorry, I'll compose myself now)

 

Seriously, you make some valid points in questioning aspects of the evidence presented, at least as you know it. Now imagine yourself in a room with myself, or one or two of the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you. No one wants to review any of the 46 days of evidence or testimony in a First Degree Murder case? No questions about the judge's instructions? Eleven hours, and all are in agreement? You guys have been going at this longer than that on this thread, and you still don't have an agreement.

 

Sound reasonable?

[Sig1Hunter]

A couple of things, Fig, and then I am done. I am not going to change your mind, and you won't change mine. My larger point was that your assertion that "there was no evidence tying Casey to the body" is totally incorrect. There was plenty of evidence... You are looking at them singularly and trying to find doubt for each individual fact, instead of looking at the overall picture.

 

I forgot to remind you that cadaver dogs alerted on Casey's car. Cadaver dogs do not alert on rotting food or dead animals. To say that a dead body smells like rotting potatoes or dead animals or rotting hamburger is crazy, and just shows that you haven't ever smelled a dead body before. I have. It is distinctive, and a smell that is never forgotten once you've smelled it. Now, is it reasonable to believe that the dogs, the police officers, the civilians, the doctors, and the sniffer machines are all wrong? No, of course it isn't.

 

On to the duct tape. And, yes I am saying that it is not reasonable that the duct tape got stuck in the hair during animal activity. Again, using my common sense and knowing what I know about the basic adhesive properties of duct tape, there is no way that the tape that was used to secure the bag was then unsealed by animals and kept in whole pieces and then still retain enough adhesive after all that time and already being securely wrapped on the bag and then over itself (have you ever tried to pull duct tape apart when it sticks to itself? Does it stay in one piece?) to then stick to hair in the manner described in court. No way. The only reasonable explanation is that the tape was on the child's face while there was still flesh on her skull. Which brings us back to: why would anyone put 3 pieces of overlapping duct tape on a three year olds face if she supposedly died accidentally?

 

Which brings us to George. Your theory is that George molested Caylee and then killed and dumped her, and this makes total sense given the evidence. Was George it George who did not report Caylee missing for 31 days? Was it George who was driving around in a car that had a dead body in it? No and no. This theory makes no sense. George was doing everything in his power to try to get Casey to tell them where Caylee was, while Casey refused.

 

And, as far as the car being out of gas... Who backs a car into a parking spot when it is out of gas? I don't recall hearing testimony that it was out of gas, but that it is excuse Casey gave her parents when they finally found the car.

 

Look at the BIG picture, Fig. I dare ya.

[Donald Duck]

A couple of things, Fig, and then I am done. I am not going to change your mind, and you won't change mine. My larger point was that your assertion that "there was no evidence tying Casey to the body" is totally incorrect. There was plenty of evidence... You are looking at them singularly and trying to find doubt for each individual fact, instead of looking at the overall picture.

 

I forgot to remind you that cadaver dogs alerted on Casey's car. Cadaver dogs do not alert on rotting food or dead animals. To say that a dead body smells like rotting potatoes or dead animals or rotting hamburger is crazy, and just shows that you haven't ever smelled a dead body before. I have. It is distinctive, and a smell that is never forgotten once you've smelled it. Now, is it reasonable to believe that the dogs, the police officers, the civilians, the doctors, and the sniffer machines are all wrong? No, of course it isn't.

 

On to the duct tape. And, yes I am saying that it is not reasonable that the duct tape got stuck in the hair during animal activity. Again, using my common sense and knowing what I know about the basic adhesive properties of duct tape, there is no way that the tape that was used to secure the bag was then unsealed by animals and kept in whole pieces and then still retain enough adhesive after all that time and already being securely wrapped on the bag and then over itself (have you ever tried to pull duct tape apart when it sticks to itself? Does it stay in one piece?) to then stick to hair in the manner described in court. No way. The only reasonable explanation is that the tape was on the child's face while there was still flesh on her skull. Which brings us back to: why would anyone put 3 pieces of overlapping duct tape on a three year olds face if she supposedly died accidentally?

 

Which brings us to George. Your theory is that George molested Caylee and then killed and dumped her, and this makes total sense given the evidence. Was George it George who did not report Caylee missing for 31 days? Was it George who was driving around in a car that had a dead body in it? No and no. This theory makes no sense. George was doing everything in his power to try to get Casey to tell them where Caylee was, while Casey refused.

 

And, as far as the car being out of gas... Who backs a car into a parking spot when it is out of gas? I don't recall hearing testimony that it was out of gas, but that it is excuse Casey gave her parents when they finally found the car.

 

Look at the BIG picture, Fig. I dare ya.

 

Lets not forget,12 individuals saw the evidence(or lack there of) the way I did Sig1. Every piece of evidence has to be observed/digested at its own merit. It would be real easy to look at the whole picture and say Casey killed Caylee, but it has to be proven. The argument the prosecution puts forth has to be proven. You can't look at the whole picture and make judgement If some of the pieces of the puzzle don't fit or are missing. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Casey didn't ditch the car, it was out of gas. If there was a dead body inside the trunk, ditching the car would be the last thing Casey would want to do don't you think. If the duct tape would have been sufficient evidence to prove cause of death, then the cause of death would have been determined to be suffocation, but it wasn't, and this is coming from an expert medical examiner. The crime scene where Caylee's remains where found was compromised so in my opinion you can't trust anything, including the duct tape.

 

The cadaver dog evidence was the most compelling because the dogs are not bias, but even then the way in which Caseys car was examined was improper in my opinion. Now had they put her car in a parking lot with other cars and allowed the dog sniffer to identify the car it would have been more credible. You are correct in one respect Sig1, I have never smelled a decomposing body. With that being said, we know Caylee died and decomposed somewhere, but George Cindy and Lee also had access to the car so in looking at the big picture what does it prove? Its fairly safe to say that whatever happened to little Caylee, someone in the family and maybe even more then one family member knew what happened and how Caylee's remains were disposed.

 

With all due respect I've enjoyed debating,discussing the case with you Sig1(fellow posters) and you are correct when you say my mind is already made up. If its any consolation I do believe Casey killed Caylee Marie Anthony, but I just don't believe it was proven in a court of law.(beyond a doubt)

 

*deep breath* HAHAHAHAHAHA! (I'm sorry, I'll compose myself now)

 

Seriously, you make some valid points in questioning aspects of the evidence presented, at least as you know it. Now imagine yourself in a room with myself, or one or two of the people in this thread who are disagreeing with you. No one wants to review any of the 46 days of evidence or testimony in a First Degree Murder case? No questions about the judge's instructions? Eleven hours, and all are in agreement? You guys have been going at this longer than that on this thread, and you still don't have an agreement.

 

Sound reasonable?

 

With that being said Terry Tate, it doesn't take all 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty.

 

Note: correction, Terry Tate has identified a mistake on my part, all 12 jurors must agree or the result is a mistrial and the case can be retried.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Listen I understand the purpose of our judicial system and its intent on protecting the innocent. But to say this woman is "innocent" is ridiculous. She's guilty as sin and complicit in the death of her kid. It's just she managed to find an attorney who weaselled her out of it. My sincere hope is that she gets hers either in this world or the next because she's not a human being in my opinion. She's an animal.

[DrDawkinstein]

Listen I understand the purpose of our judicial system and its intent on protecting the innocent. But to say this woman is "innocent" is ridiculous. She's guilty as sin and complicit in the death of her kid. It's just she managed to find an attorney who weaselled her out of it. My sincere hope is that she gets hers either in this world or the next because she's not a human being in my opinion. She's an animal.

 

I dont think one person here has said that she is innocent. Or has even tried to argue that. Even the most extreme opinion is that the Not Guilty verdict was simply the correct one in this specific court case.

 

The problem the jury and court faces was that you can not properly punish someone when you dont know exactly what they did.

 

Fortunately for us, but unfortunately in this case, our legal system is not based on being able to make assumptions and jump to conclusions.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Lets not forget,12 individuals saw the evidence(or lack there of) the way I did Sig1. Every piece of evidence has to be observed/digested at its own merit. It would be real easy to look at the whole picture and say Casey killed Caylee, but it has to be proven. The argument the prosecution puts forth has to be proven. You can't look at the whole picture and make judgement If some of the pieces of the puzzle don't fit or are missing. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Casey didn't ditch the car, it was out of gas. If there was a dead body inside the trunk, ditching the car would be the last thing Casey would want to do don't you think. If the duct tape would have been sufficient evidence to prove cause of death, then the cause of death would have been determined to be suffocation, but it wasn't, and this is coming from an expert medical examiner. The crime scene where Caylee's remains where found was compromised so in my opinion you can't trust anything, including the duct tape.

 

The cadaver dog evidence was the most compelling because the dogs are not bias, but even then the way in which Caseys car was examined was improper in my opinion. Now had they put her car in a parking lot with other cars and allowed the dog sniffer to identify the car it would have been more credible. You are correct in one respect Sig1, I have never smelled a decomposing body. With that being said, we know Caylee died and decomposed somewhere, but George Cindy and Lee also had access to the car so in looking at the big picture what does it prove? Its fairly safe to say that whatever happened to little Caylee, someone in the family and maybe even more then one family member knew what happened and how Caylee's remains were disposed.

 

With all due respect I've enjoyed debating,discussing the case with you Sig1(fellow posters) and you are correct when you say my mind is already made up. If its any consolation I do believe Casey killed Caylee Marie Anthony, but I just don't believe it was proven in a court of law.(beyond a doubt)

 

 

 

With that being said Terry Tate, it doesn't take all 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty

 

It's supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a doubt." There may have been some doubt that Casey killed Caylee, but this doubt was by no means reasonable. I think those jurors didn't properly understand this very critical point, but then again what else do you expect from Floridians? Casey should have been sentenced to life in prison, but not the death penalty. Anything else was/is a tragic failure of the United States system of law.

[DrDawkinstein]

It's supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a doubt." There may have been some doubt that Casey killed Caylee, but this doubt was by no means reasonable. I think those jurors didn't properly understand this very critical point, but then again what else do you expect from Floridians? Casey should have been sentenced to life in prison, but not the death penalty. Anything else was/is a tragic failure of the United States system of law.

 

You're right that "reasonable doubt" is often mis-defined by people. But I think the reasonable doubt would be that they cant prove it was Casey, or the Father, or Mother, or whoever. Or even what roles those others played. Or even what probably happened.

 

Was it "most likely" Casey? Sure, probably. But when the Prosecution cant put together a good story of Who did it, How they did it, When they did it, etc... even if based on circumstantial evidence, then no one is getting convicted. All they could say is "This kinda all adds up to show she probably did something". Thats not going to get anyone convicted.

 

The Burden of Proof is on the Prosecution.

Edited July 9, 2011 by DrDareustein