Casey Anthony Trial

[Real Deal]

No evidence? Her computer had searches of how to make chloroform, how to break a neck. In connection with that, there were traces of chloroform in the trunk of the car. That already narrows it down to the grandparents or Casey. Given the fact that she didn't report Caylee missing for 31 days, partied during this time, had a "Bella Vita" tattoo done that month, used duct tape found from the house, the blanket, the trash bag, her lying over and over again to the police...what else needs to be presented?

 

Using the jury's logic, nobody killed her. Nobody threw her in the swamp. No DNA? Nobody did anything wrong. Caylee obviously did all of this herself.

 

Sorry...wrong. Casey Anthony is a murderer. You don't put duct tape over your baby's mouth when she supposedly drowns, and you don't throw her into a swamp. She wasn't in a bathing suit, wasn't in pajamas, so she wasn't swimming and it wasn't early morning. You don't go out partying, celebrating, etc. She got away with it, simple as that, and I wouldn't care if someone "took care" of her later on down the road, and ironically, was found not guilty in the same manner.

 

Casey killed her, and she covered it up. Maybe she told her parents, and maybe they helped cover it up...but there's no "maybe" about who murdered her.

[EastCoastNiner]

No evidence? Her computer had searches of how to make chloroform, how to break a neck. In connection with that, there were traces of chloroform in the trunk of the car. That already narrows it down to the grandparents or Casey. Given the fact that she didn't report Caylee missing for 31 days, partied during this time, had a "Bella Vita" tattoo done that month, used duct tape found from the house, the blanket, the trash bag, her lying over and over again to the police...what else needs to be presented?

 

Using the jury's logic, nobody killed her. Nobody threw her in the swamp. No DNA? Nobody did anything wrong. Caylee obviously did all of this herself.

 

Sorry...wrong. Casey Anthony is a murderer. You don't put duct tape over your baby's mouth when she supposedly drowns, and you don't throw her into a swamp. She wasn't in a bathing suit, wasn't in pajamas, so she wasn't swimming and it wasn't early morning. You don't go out partying, celebrating, etc. She got away with it, simple as that, and I wouldn't care if someone "took care" of her later on down the road, and ironically, was found not guilty in the same manner.

 

Casey killed her, and she covered it up. Maybe she told her parents, and maybe they helped cover it up...but there's no "maybe" about who murdered her.

 

It's apparent that you aren't understanding the difference between "innocent" and "not-guilty". The jurors can't just make a decision based upon how they feel with disregard for the law. They must follow the law, and that is what they did. Where is the proof of child abuse again? The prosecution had a weak case for child abuse.

 

I put most of this on the DA for being a moron and trying to go for capital murder without a clear motive and without a clear cause of death. They had a lot of evidence, but just didn't tie it together well enough.

 

Again, I think she is guilty of something happening to her daughter, but death penalty decisions are taken a LOT more seriously, and the jurors all came to the same conclusion I believe, just like the alternate jurors that spoke, so I think that speaks volumes.

Edited July 6, 2011 by DaBearsfan101

[EastCoastNiner]

http://i56.tinypic.com/1zveq93.jpg

[Real Deal]

It's apparent that you aren't understanding the difference between "innocent" and "not-guilty".

Innocent is an antonym for guilty, which means that being considered "not guilty" is also being considered innocent. There is no difference. It's believed that there is, which is part of why the system is screwed up.

 

The jurors can't just make a decision based upon how they feel with disregard for the law. They must follow the law, and that is what they did. Where is the proof of child abuse again? The prosecution had a weak case for child abuse.

The law? They tied a ton of evidence together, and it pointed to Casey Anthony being guilty. That's exactly how you convict someone. You don't go into a courtroom, as the prosecution, with a video of the murder.

 

I put most of this on the DA for being a moron and trying to go for capital murder without a clear motive and without a clear cause of death. They had a lot of evidence, but just didn't tie it together well enough.

Dude, how else were they supposed to present it? They made it all clear as day, tied it all together. When someone is searching for methods of killing someone, then the trunk of their car contains evidence that they used those methods, not to mention a diary entry that points to Casey making a huge change in her life and saying she has no regrets...what the [expletive]? She doesn't report her missing for 31 days. How much more could be presented?

 

I'm not even sure if those idiots of the jury would be convinced if there was an audio recording found in the forest, of Casey saying she hopes nobody finds her daughter.

 

Again, I think she is guilty of something happening to her daughter, but death penalty decisions are taken a LOT more seriously, and the jurors all came to the same conclusion I believe, just like the alternate jurors that spoke, so I think that speaks volumes.

It wouldn't have mattered. The jury didn't think she was guilty of anything other than lying to the cops, which she basically admitted to. [expletive], they probably needed to be spoon-fed that.

 

It's not the jury's responsibility to find the motive. They aren't supposed to look at those pictures and say, "How can this woman kill her own daughter?" That is also getting your emotions involved. What was their job? To take in everything from both sides, the evidence more than anything else, along with arguments, and make a decision based solely on that.

 

Unfortunately, they didn't do it...and at the end of the day, no matter what, it was up to the jury. Those 12 jury members didn't go to law school. They were manipulated by those pictures and Casey not having a motive (which she actually did, not wanting to take care of her kid...which was stated by a couple of witnesses claiming she didn't want Caylee and considered putting her up for adoption, plus fighting her mom about who's going to take care of her, and the diary entry that states how her life is better), which makes this a sad day for our country.

[?QuestionMark?]

Here's the problem. Casey probably killed the kid. But we don't know that she did.

 

Jurors have a to base their verdict based on a higher standard than everyone else. They have to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact the prosecution couldn't even establish how the kid died hurt their case. Could have been murder, could have been negligence. Bottom line, the state tried to convict based on circumstantial evidence without any proof. Instead of trying to hit a homer, they should have settled for a double and charged Casey based on something they could prove.

[Real Deal]

they should have settled for a double and charged Casey based on something they could prove.

In other words, charged her with nothing, because she did a fantastic job of letting her daughter decompose in a trunk and in a swamp for too long.

 

If this were a rape case, we wouldn't know if Caylee was raped because, well, she was all bones when she was found.

 

She was rewarded today, for being an excellent murderer. She'll be rewarded later for the books, interviews, and movie(s).

 

They had everything but DNA, and if they didn't have any DNA to begin with, I suppose Caylee just killed herself, taped her mouth shut, and threw herself into the swamp.

 

Oh well...it's making me sick just talking about Casey walking free. OJ was a bit different. This was devastating for far too many people. She'll get hers.

[fish7718]

The way the police handled this case is just atrocious man, those men better be fired because they are the reason the prosecution lost this case.

[?QuestionMark?]

In other words, charged her with nothing, because she did a fantastic job of letting her daughter decompose in a trunk and in a swamp for too long.

 

No, charging her with child negligence based on the fact she never reported the kid missing. They state instead tried to charge her with crimes that involve an element of premeditation. Since they couldn't even prove how she died it's hard to prove intent.

 

If this were a rape case, we wouldn't know if Caylee was raped because, well, she was all bones when she was found.

 

If this was a rape case it doesn't make it to trial without DNA evidence or an admission of guilt, or even proof of sex. So yeah. So yeah. Direct evidence is pretty important in any case.

 

She was rewarded today, for being an excellent murderer. She'll be rewarded later for the books, interviews, and movie(s).

 

She was rewarded because the defense created reasonable doubt on premeditated murder charges. The state proved she is a lair, an unfit, horrible mother and terrible human being. But not that she actually killed her daughter.

 

They had everything but DNA, and if they didn't have any DNA to begin with, I suppose Caylee just killed herself, taped her mouth shut, and threw herself into the swamp.

 

They didn't have everything. They couldn't even prove how she died. And just because she was found not guilty doesn't mean that the jury believe she's not guilty of playing a role in the kid's death. It just means they didn't believe the prosecution's theory.

 

Oh well...it's making me sick just talking about Casey walking free. OJ was a bit different. This was devastating for far too many people. She'll get hers.

 

Agree. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad with the justice system. Better to let a guilty person go free than send an innocent one go to jail. I think a guilty one went free here. But I don't blame the jury.

[trutrojan8]

Couldn't the state of Florida recharge her with something like child negligence? Or can they only try someone once for the same crime?

[EastCoastNiner]

Couldn't the state of Florida recharge her with something like child negligence? Or can they only try someone once for the same crime?

 

 

No, not only can they not charge her with that, but they can't charge her with anything being related to this case. In regards to child neglect, they can't do that because they already disputed the drowning as well.

 

There's nothing that can be done.

[Real Deal]

I'm pretty sure the jury went by the law and did not let emotions take control, which is why casey is innocent of murder. The state went for a death penalty case, and you need real solid evidence to convict someone for it. How do we know casey killed her child? what if it was her mother? her father? Was it an accident or drowned in the pool? No one knows. The autopsy showed nothing, no chloroform, no drugs, nothing out of the ordinary in her bone structure, no suffocating marks, nothing. Trunk proved nothing. The neck breaking search on the internet was already disproved, and the the chloroform is iffy at best. Diary enter? Again you're making assumptions , who's to say I have no regrets or no worries has anything to do with her daughter? Could it dropping out of school? Could it be getting pregnant? There's no date.

You having to provide explanations for multiple things, which ironically stack up to show that she's guilty, is enough.

 

It's asinine. If $500 was stolen from someone, and I had $490 because I spent $10 on gas getting back home with the money...hell, I didn't have the entire $500, and who's to say that the $10 I used at the station was part of the stolen money? :o

 

I paid for my gas with black gloves on, and a winter face mask, but hey, it's cold out, and maybe I'm just keeping warm. The robber had that on also? Wow, that's a coincidence.

 

My DNA wasn't at the crime scene, though, so I'm good to rob whoever else I need to.

 

I'm very displeased at this public outrage, they are trying to create a mob of hatred towards casey so some wacko will "do the job the jury couldn't do". What if you were with your mother, and all of a sudden she disappeared and was found dead in a bag in the woods? You were the last one with her, so we going to charge you for murder. Crazy, I know.

If I was with my mother, and she disappeared, I'm pretty sure I did it, or I know who did it.

 

And I'm not going to wait a month to report it, unless I want her to decompose.

[Guru]

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2189/screenshot20110706at824.png

[EastCoastNiner]

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2189/screenshot20110706at824.png

 

You were only 10 posts late.

[Guru]

You were only 10 posts late.

Lolz, you mad because nobody repped your picture?

[?QuestionMark?]

You having to provide explanations for multiple things, which ironically stack up to show that she's guilty, is enough.

 

The question becomes guilty of what? It's like citing someone for running a stop sign when really they were speeding. Even though a traffic violation did happen, can't find a person guilty if it's the wrong charge. I think in the opinion of most of us and the juror, Casey was guilty of something involving the death of the girl. But was it intentional, on accident, or did she just cover it up?

 

It's asinine. If $500 was stolen from someone, and I had $490 because I spent $10 on gas getting back home with the money...hell, I didn't have the entire $500, and who's to say that the $10 I used at the station was part of the stolen money? :o

 

I paid for my gas with black gloves on, and a winter face mask, but hey, it's cold out, and maybe I'm just keeping warm. The robber had that on also? Wow, that's a coincidence.

 

My DNA wasn't at the crime scene, though, so I'm good to rob whoever else I need to.

 

Did someone see you steal the money? Get a discription of the car? Get a good description of you? Did the gloves and mask match the ones found later? Was it cold which would explain why someone would have gloves or a mask? Did the money they find match the cash stolen? What if the stolen money was all in $100 bills but the cash found on you were all in $10s. Stuff like this matters. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

 

If they match, there's enough evidence to show you were the probable robber and would get charged with robbery. If not, then you still may get charged with something else. Possible attempted robbery if they find a gun on you.

 

 

If I was with my mother, and she disappeared, I'm pretty sure I did it, or I know who did it.

 

And I'm not going to wait a month to report it, unless I want her to decompose.

 

All that shows is that you're involved somehow. But can they prove YOU specifically were the person who did the killing. If you know who did it but didn't actually do the killing then you can't be charged with murder. That's what happened with Anthony. There wasn't enough evidence to prove Anthony actually murdered the kid. Doesn't mean the jury doesn't believe she had nothing to do with her death.

[Real Deal]

Well, a ton of current and former attorneys are shocked at the verdict, so I guess I'm in the same boat as them.

[EastCoastNiner]

Well, a ton of current and former attorneys are shocked at the verdict, so I guess I'm in the same boat as them.

 

Just like a ton of them are not surprised at all with the verdict. I guess I'm in the same boat as them.

 

I think most people THINK she is guilty, but going by the letter of the law, the jury just couldn't convict her. At the same time, I keep thinking "When does enough circumstantial evidence become enough?" because it was overwhelming in this case.

 

She did something to Caylee, and I believe it was killing her, but the jury couldn't convict her based upon what they heard and were shown. I mean, even the alternate jurors said the same thing.

 

It's a frustrating case because she is a complete scum-bag, and has gotten off legally.

 

Also, if anyone watched any of Dr. Drew on CNN Headline News with Jeff Ashton, what did you think? I feel bad for him, but he's handling himself very well.

 

Also, apparently before the body was found, Casey was talking about being able to go on radio stations and t.v. shows, and she was joking about Howard Stern and asking about her bra size if she went on the show. She is a low life piece of shit, and I wouldn't have complained at all if she went to jail, but I guess I understand the verdict.

[Real Deal]

Those that are saying they understand the verdict are claiming that the prosecution shouldn't have went for the kill (literally...going for the death sentence).

 

Look, that's ridiculous. If you're going to ask people if she's guilty or not, it shouldn't matter the potential sentence. What COULD happen to her doesn't change what she did or didn't do.

 

You guys keep talking about the law, but the law says the jury makes the decision, the judge works the sentencing, and that's the bottom line. The jury had it in their hands, and they dropped the ball. Casey Anthony will make millions, have another kid or two (as she already stated), and she's going to smile and live her life better than all of us.

 

Had the jury found her guilty, she would've been sentenced on Thursday. The judge wasn't going to say, "Uh, wait, this isn't going to go down because there was no DNA at the crime scene." That's what I don't understand, when you guys continue to say the jury couldn't get it done. They could've, but chose not to.

[trutrojan8]

She was sentenced to 6 days in jail, since she got some type of 'credit' for being behind bars since like 2008 or something like that.

[EastCoastNiner]

Those that are saying they understand the verdict are claiming that the prosecution shouldn't have went for the kill (literally...going for the death sentence).

 

Look, that's ridiculous. If you're going to ask people if she's guilty or not, it shouldn't matter the potential sentence. What COULD happen to her doesn't change what she did or didn't do.

 

You guys keep talking about the law, but the law says the jury makes the decision, the judge works the sentencing, and that's the bottom line. The jury had it in their hands, and they dropped the ball. Casey Anthony will make millions, have another kid or two (as she already stated), and she's going to smile and live her life better than all of us.

 

Had the jury found her guilty, she would've been sentenced on Thursday. The judge wasn't going to say, "Uh, wait, this isn't going to go down because there was no DNA at the crime scene." That's what I don't understand, when you guys continue to say the jury couldn't get it done. They could've, but chose not to.

 

I understand what you are saying, and my heart is completely in agreement with that, but my brain is partly in disagreement. At the end of the day, no motive and no cause of death was proven. You're not going to get a first-degree murder conviction with that lack of evidence in this case, especially with the death penalty on the line. The death penalty should have been taken off the table here. I know you are going to say that even if they took it off, the jury's decision should not change, and legally I agree with you, but I think we'd be being naive if we didn't think that factors into their decision, whether or not that is right or wrong. I really don't know if she would have been convicted if the death penalty was off the table, but who knows?

 

Again, I know what your response will be, and I understand it. I'm sure it's going to be along the lines of saying that the jury needs to make their decision based upon the evidence, and not the potential of a death sentence, but I think the reality is that that does factor into their decision, whether it is right or wrong, and whether or not they really did think like that. At the end of the day, the alternate jurors came to the same decision as well, and I think that is telling.

 

Also, some food for thought. Do you think she actually pre-meditated and murdered her daughter? I used to think so, but I'm a little skeptical for a few reasons. If she pre-meditated to kill her kid, don't you think she would have had a better plan, and had a better story for the police? The way she acted was not the way most people who pre-meditate murder would act, and, yes, I know she is not your "normal" person.

 

Also, I forget the name of the law, but I believe it prohibits defendants from making money off of their story's for their cases, and I think that maybe jurors should not be able to make a profit either. Honestly, the jurors could easily think that if they give a not-guilty verdict in a case like this that they will get a lot of money to talk about their decisions. Does anyone know what law I'm talking about because I heard of it earlier, but am not sure if I am correct on it, and if it is actually a U.S. law?

 

Already, one of the jurors has a family paid trip to Disney World by ABC in order to talk about the case. I'm always a little skeptical about these decisions.

[Real Deal]

Also, some food for thought. Do you think she actually pre-meditated and murdered her daughter?

Yes.

 

1) She saw her last.

2) She had searched for chloroform, breaking necks, and death on her computer (they didn't prove those searches to be false, because the mom was actually at work when they took place).

3) Her trunk had traces of chloroform in it.

4) A piece of Caylee's hair was in her trunk (part of the new scientific advancements they used).

5) She didn't report her missing for 31 days.

6) She lied about her being with a nanny for those 31 days, and rode that lie for years.

7) She lied about the drowning, because Caylee was not wearing a bathing suit (to swim) or pajamas (just waking up in the morning), and you don't put duct tape on your dead daughter's mouth after a drowning because the dead can't speak or breathe to begin with.

8) The same brand of duct tape was found at the house.

9) Caylee's blanket was missing from the home, found at the scene.

10) Casey's diary entry, dated in June (with no year, but obviously, it was current because of other contents written before and after that pertained to her current life), where she wrote that she had no regrets, but was a bit worried what would happen to her...and this was before she was arrested, and while Caylee was "missing." Said her life was better, with new friends.

11) Tied in with the diary entry, she gets a new tattoo while Caylee is "missing" that says "Bella Vita," which stands for the Beautiful Life (or good life), which she seemed to seek in her diary entry.

12) Fighting with her mom about how Caylee was a mistake, Casey would also want her mom to take care of Caylee more often, and witnesses (close friends) claimed that Casey did consider putting Caylee up for adoption, at one point.

13) Casey's happiest month of the last three years of her life? When she was partying during those 31 days that her daughter was missing, as proven by photos, her diary entry, and her spontaneous behavior.

14) Caylee first decomposed in the car (trash? haha...okay) and then, for months in the swamp/flood waters, which eliminated any proof of Caylee being drugged, poisoned, etc...and with the decomposition taking effect, plus the wild animals breaking and chewing her bones (which was stated), a broken neck was out of the question as well, further hiding the real cause of death.

15) Casey did not take the stand, because she had nothing more to say. She didn't have any other story, and she did not want to explain the "drowning" or getting rid of the body. She was advised that the case was over long before the closing statements.

16) She didn't give her daughter, the one she supposedly loved so much, a proper burial. I had a hard time letting my dog sat there for too long, once he passed away, because I didn't want him to decompose before my eyes, and I buried him ASAP. It's her own flesh and blood. The only people that put dead bodies in trunks of cars are murderers or hearse drivers.

 

She's guilty. At some point, with all the evidence, there shouldn't be a need for DNA.

 

If she pre-meditated to kill her kid, don't you think she would have had a better plan, and had a better story for the police?

A better story? No idea. She had two stories, though. The first one, had she stuck to it, would've landed her in prison. Once she changed it up, suddenly, there were ideas that she was covering the "accident" up, and so were her parents. Once she had her parents involved, with her dad being the one that found Caylee in the pool, it threw them into the fire as well, which gave the jury three people to think about. That's how the case was in her favor, all of a sudden.

 

The way she acted was not the way most people who pre-meditate murder would act, and, yes, I know she is not your "normal" person.

All through the trial, she was instructed to sit and listen, no emotion. This was obvious once it was over, and she was the happiest person in Florida. People can say she was sad, but she was fake as hell. She wasn't weeping when they were talking about Caylee...she cried about other things. At one point, she was grinding her teeth and pissed off at someone, for about five seconds, until she looked back into the direction of the camera and put on her "I'm fearless" mask.

 

Also, I forget the name of the law, but I believe it prohibits defendants from making money off of their story's for their cases, and I think that maybe jurors should not be able to make a profit either. Honestly, the jurors could easily think that if they give a not-guilty verdict in a case like this that they will get a lot of money to talk about their decisions. Does anyone know what law I'm talking about because I heard of it earlier, but am not sure if I am correct on it, and if it is actually a U.S. law?

Whatever the law, it didn't matter for Simpson, so I doubt it'll be a big deal for her.

 

----------

 

I feel so involved in this case because I was interested (more interested, at one point) in another. Two parents had watched their own child burn in a house fire. Their child was mentally disabled, to the point where they were instructed (by the SRS, I believe) to reinforce the child's bed, and tie her to it. I have a cousin who is mentally disabled, not to the point where she's eating glass and paint chips, ripping up the rug (like this little girl was), but I related to this case a bit.

 

Both parents ended up getting 40 years, if I recall correctly. One of them was actually burned, trying to rescue the daughter. But, because they had her tied up, no matter any instructions given, they were screwed over in the case.

 

Casey Anthony killed her child, and she's basically getting six days in prison for it? She served the three years not because of that, but actually due to her stealing money and what-not.

 

That's why I'm so pissed off. Yeah, the prosecution went for the death penalty, and we can all say they shouldn't have, but the laws need to change. The judge needs to decide that, once the jury finds him/her guilty. The jury should be given options as to what they need to find her guilty of, all based on what the sentencing should be, and that's that. If it's considered the best system in the world, it needs to prove it much better in some of the biggest cases we've ever seen, because you can't have ALL of those things hanging over your head, yet you walk for it. Even the talk that the jury only knew 1/6 of the evidence...that's jaw-dropping. Some things weren't allowed to be presented? Present it all.

 

OJ's gloves didn't fit. Hey, if I actually had a brain, I'm going to wear smaller gloves, just so I can have something to prove my innocence. Or I'll plant them, whatever. The gloves are far too small? Cool, I'm free. Common sense thrown out the window.

 

She's an ugly whore, nasty as can be, she wants ANOTHER kid (through birth, but she even stated she'd consider adoption), she wants to change her name, she came into the courtroom today like she was at a house party, giving a couple of cops the vibe that she wants to get nailed right there in court...it's just sick.

[EastCoastNiner]

This isn't the case about the child being tied to the bed is it?

 

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/23/springer-parents-to-spend-years-in-prison/

 

If it isn't, I would like to read about the story because I'm guessing there is more to it than you are leading me to believe.

[Real Deal]

lol party animal, who cares how she dressed in the court the other day.

 

lol good thing I live in america and not a country like Iran, if I'm being accused of murder and being put on the death penalty, i want REAL SOLID EVIDENCE, I want PROOF that it WAS ME. I want a trial based on the LAW and not what a person "feels" or "thinks is right". If the police would have recovered the body sooner, maybe they would have had better evidence. The prosecutors did a pretty lousy job with this case, and that is why casey is innocent and is a free woman.

LOL, nice job not putting anything together, rather just explaining everything individually. This all happened at once. This isn't you trying to explain all of your screw-ups while you were in elementary school.

[Real Deal]

This isn't the case about the child being tied to the bed is it?

 

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/23/springer-parents-to-spend-years-in-prison/

 

If it isn't, I would like to read about the story because I'm guessing there is more to it than you are leading me to believe.

Sounds like the one, I don't remember their names.

[Real Deal]

Incredible read, written by an OJ prosecutor. First, she tells how a sequestered jury leads to everyone in the group thinking alike (didn't even know the jury was sequestered, which is another reason why this shit went south so quickly). Then...

 

Ms. Ford’s primary complaint was that the prosecution didn’t prove cause of death. As she put it: “How can you punish someone for something if you don’t know what they did?...[The prosecution] didn’t even paint a picture for me to consider.”

 

That was defense attorney Jose Baez’s strategy, through and through. And it has nothing to do with what’s legally required to prove a homicide.

 

The truth is, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove cause of death. It only need prove criminal agency—that the death was a homicide, as opposed to an accident. It’s nice to have a body, a murder weapon, a cause of death, but it’s certainly not essential. I’ve had cases where not only was there no murder weapon, there was no body. We had no evidence to establish cause of death. Still, those cases resulted in convictions—in fact that jury returned a verdict of first-degree murder in one of them.

 

And the Anthony prosecutors could have done it too, because the evidence was more than sufficient to prove a homicide: a baby disappeared and the last person seen with the child—the mother—lied repeatedly for a full month about her whereabouts; deliberately lied in a way that prevented anyone from searching for the child. The mother’s researching of chloroform on the computer matched up to the finding of chloroform traces in the trunk of the car. The same car trunk where a hair consistent with Caylee's was found; a hair that was arguably from a decomposing body. The same car trunk from which the smell of a decomposing body emanated strongly. The child’s decomposed body was found bagged in the woods near the mother’s house. Significantly, the child’s mouth and nose had been duct taped. And while that child’s body lay decomposing in the woods, the mother euphorically and gleefully partied with her buddies knowing full well that not only was her child dead but she was actively preventing anyone from finding out. That evidence not only proved a homicide, it proved that Casey Anthony committed it.

 

How did the defense counter this compelling body of evidence? They put up a bit of a fight on the forensics. Especially as to whether the hair could be definitively said to have come from a corpse. Okay, fine, let that one go.

 

Then what about the duct tape? There’s no reason to put duct tape on the face of a child who’s already dead. The defense made a lame attempt to counter that by asserting that ‘some other dude’ put the duct tape on the baby’s face—but the testimony offered to prove that (Dr. Werner Spitz) was laughably weak, and thus didn’t even dent the prosecution’s case.

 

When all was said and done, the only things the defense really had going for it were the unproven allegations of molestation and the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the baby drowned in the swimming pool.

 

But if you listen to Juror Jennifer Ford’s interview, those unproven, unsubstantiated claims are exactly what the jury hung its collective hat on.

 

When she complained that they never knew exactly how the child died, she was asked: “So you believed it was an accident?”

 

Her answer: “I’m not saying that, I’m saying it’s a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. But the chloroform I’m all over the place, I’m in a maze, I don’t know where I’m at.”

 

The child’s body was found in a plastic bag with duct tape over the mouth and nose, and left to decompose in the woods while Casey Anthony told everyone the baby was with Zanny the Nanny, and she found it “easier” to believe it was an accident? Frankly, I don’t see how you “walk from here to there” to make that happen.

 

So where did she get the idea that it was easier to believe this was an accident? Baez’s opening statement—where he claimed that he’d prove this was an accident. The only problem is, he didn’t. Usually, juries hold lawyers accountable for those flops. Not here.

 

Ms. Ford also claimed the prosecution never showed a motive. What did all those party pictures mean to her? The tattoo Casey Anthony got days after her baby died: “Bella Vida”?

 

To that, Ms. Ford said, “It looks very bad…but bad behavior is not enough to prove a crime.”

 

Sound familiar? It’s exactly what Jose Baez said: You can believe she’s a liar, a slut, a lying slut, but that doesn’t mean she killed her baby.

 

But where Baez’s non-evidence had the greatest impact was on the jury’s perception of George Anthony. Here, Ms. Ford’s answers are very telling. Her statements are somewhat contradictory, and show incredible antipathy for—and suspicion of—Casey’s father.

 

“He did not help the State’s case,” she said. “He was clearly dishonest. He was evasive. His story seemed to change.”

 

But there was an obvious explanation for the father’s behavior. George Anthony was a man undergoing an incredible conflict: he wanted to defend his daughter, yet, being a police officer, he surely knew the evidence against her was compelling. And on top of all that, his daughter's defense strategy set him up as an incestuous child molester. Given all those circumstances, it’s not hard to see how he veered from one side to the other, his loyalties and love for his daughter and his granddaughter in conflict and sorely tested. The jury could have reasoned it that way too. But it didn’t.

 

When asked whether she believed George Anthony had some part in the demise of little Caylee, Ms. Ford said: “I don’t know if he had anything to do with it, but I think he was there.”

 

And where would the jury get the idea that George Anthony was “there”? Surely not in the evidence—there was not one shred of evidence to support that notion. Once again, that was speculation that was raised in Jose Baez’s opening statement but was nowhere in the evidence.

 

Then what did the jury think happened to Caylee? Now this is where the reasoning finally falls through the hole in the floor.

 

According to Ms. Ford, “Something happened, at some point she probably needed medical care or at least there could be some attempt…to save the child’s life that was never made. That bothered me.” But if it was just an accident, then why would the body wind up in a plastic bag in a swamp? “You’re covering up something…it’s either an accident or…nobody knows what it is.”

 

This is exactly what Jose Baez told them to believe. That since they couldn’t know how Caylee died, they couldn’t convict his client. That it was an accident—and he’d prove it. Didn't matter that he never proved it, didn't matter that the notion of accident had no basis in fact or logic, didn’t matter that only his client had motive to kill the child, didn’t matter that his client was the last to be seen with the child, put duct tape on the child’s mouth and nose, hid the fact of the child’s death, carried the child’s body around in her trunk, then stashed the body in a plastic bag and hid it in the woods. Never mind all that.

 

Juror Ford said she didn't believe it was their duty to "connect all the dots," and that the prosecution was required to answer every question about Caylee's death, including why and how it was committed.

 

First of all, there is no such thing as a case in which the prosecution answers every question. It isn't possible. Second of all, the prosecution doesn't have to. The prosecution is only required to prove the elements of the crime - and that does not include motive nor does it include cause of death.

 

Moreover, it is most certainly the jury's duty to "connect the dots." The jury is required to consider all of the evidence and to draw the reasonable inferences that evidence suggests. Note I said reasonable - that doesn't mean concocting scenarios out of thin air based on nothing but a lawyer's opening statement.

 

And by the way, what about that duct tape? How did the jury get around that one? Here’s what Ms. Ford said:

 

“In our country unfortunately we have to prove it…it smells bad, looks bad, yeah I get that. But it’s someone else’s life and if I’m wrong, I can’t live with that.”

 

In other words: no answer. I said it early on in this case and I’ll say it again: that duct tape was the murder weapon. No innocent explanation—that is, any viable one—was ever produced. And the jury never found one either. Nevertheless, they bought the defense and acquitted Casey Anthony, who most surely killed that child.

 

That’s what I can’t live with.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/08/casey-anthony-trail-the-sequestered-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

Love it.

 

Also, Juror #3's answers to everything she was asked were ridiculous, and just more proof that she (and the rest of the jury) were ignorant.