The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law)

[Mulvah]

I try to distance myself from these types of things, but sometimes I can't.  I much prefer to watch a trial than to listen/watch/read the news on cases, especially one like this.  Anyhow, so far I'm really disgusted by the defense attorney, not only by the defense theory, but also his tactics in dealing with witnesses.  I think he is preying on a hurt family, utilizing this case for his "15 minutes", and is trying to confuse the jury.  I sincerely hope the jury can cut through the BS on this one.  So far, the defense theory has more holes than Emmental.

---

Edited:  For those interested in some articles, this is an interesting article titled "Casey Anthony Verdict: A Jury of Idiots or Hapless Peers?".  In the last paragraph the article basically says that trials like this are a sporting event in this country, whereas, in other countries the prosecution and defense work to uncover the truth.  It then states that this type of scenario (a lack of justice) does not happen as frequently in other countries because of the aforementioned setup.

Also, for those interested in signing a petition regarding Caylee's Law, you can go here.  And, four states are already working on Caylee's Law - Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Kentucky.    If you would like some type of justice for this little girl, please contact your senator, representatives, etc.  If anyone is reading this, Ohio and New Hampshire are also considering proposing this law.

Petition for Caylee's Law:  Here is the petition for Caylee's Law.

Contact Information:  Here is a list of contact information for Senators and here is information for Representatives.  Here is also another list that you may find helpful.

Edited by Mulvah - 7/10/11 at 5:09pm

[Maurine]

I have a friend who watches it during the day and fills me in.  That defense attorney sounds terrible!  He keeps getting in trouble with the judge.

I think Casey is in a heap of trouble...that defense is not convicing me one bit!

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by Maurine 

I have a friend who watches it during the day and fills me in.  That defense attorney sounds terrible!  He keeps getting in trouble with the judge.

I think Casey is in a heap of trouble...that defense is not convicing me one bit!

Baez still continues to get into trouble with the judge. 

Edited by Mulvah - 7/10/11 at 5:01pm

[TCMoulton]

Jose Baez really is an amateur when it comes to major cases as believe this is his first. His tactics when questioning George Anthony and Casey's attitude in court really tick me off. I just Hope the jury sees her for who she truly is - a murderer.

[Mulvah]

I am sick over the verdict.  I honestly feel ill that I live in this country right now.

[Drummer's Wife]

yeah, wow. 

[insidevoice]

I was happy with the verdict.  My opinion isn't based on whether or not I thought she did something to cause harm to her child, but based on the case presented by the state.  They did a wonderful job of character assassination, but that isn't enough to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  T

I don't feel it is my place to pass judgement on her actions or her parenting.  It is the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, they proved that she isn't a good person, but they couldn't make the connections for the rest. 

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

I was happy with the verdict.  My opinion isn't based on whether or not I thought she did something to cause harm to her child, but based on the case presented by the state.  They did a wonderful job of character assassination, but that isn't enough to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  T

I don't feel it is my place to pass judgement on her actions or her parenting.  It is the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, they proved that she isn't a good person, but they couldn't make the connections for the rest. 

Please help me understand it because I feel sick to my stomach with the verdict and I truly want to understand.  Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt.  I am just baffled. 

I really want to understand, I do, so no snark intended at all.  How do you explain the duct tape over Caylee's mouth?  How do you explain the smell of decomposition in the car?  How do you explain not calling 911 if it were an accidental drowning (which is very common in FL)?  How do you explain partying, a "Beautiful Life" tattoo, etc. after knowing your child drowned in a pool?  How do you explain lying about a babysitter kidnapping your child when you supposedly knew it was an accidental drowning?

[KatWrangler]

I don't get it.  I am shocked with the verdict.

[insidevoice]

The state didn't make any case about an accidental drowning.  That's just the point.  The state tried to paint a picture of a violent mother who actively killed her child, they didn't have concrete evidence to make that case.   

Simply put, they couldn't put the duct tape in her hand as the cause of death. 

Smells in cars can be caued by many things, and if push came to shove the argument could be made that the body WAS in the car, but that doesn't mean that Casey actively killed the child.  Once the defense introduced accidental death as a consideration it changed the trial.  The state had to prove that she killed her daughter, AND that it was premeditated.  They never had the evidence to do that and would have been better off going forward with ONLY the manslaughter charge- as they could have focused more on the evidence instead of Casey's actions. 

The behavior is explained simply by saying that she reacted badly- out of fear, out of grief out of anything- people react in different ways and even just plain STUPID ways.  The argument can be made that the tattoo was a tribute by a loving mother celebrating her daughter's life.  Her partying was an attempt to escape from a reality she couldn't cope with, the lies can be written off as someone trying to deny the reality of a horrible situation.  Whether I believe that or not is of no consequence.  They are all legally plausible explanations, and are together enough to create legal reasonable doubt. 

If people are upset with the verdict, they need to look not at the defendant, but at the prosecution, who thought it was a slam-dunk case and went forward when they shouldn't have. 

[catlvr976]

I was wondering, as I haven't really foloowed the case....who/where is the little girls' father? 

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

The state didn't make any case about an accidental drowning.  That's just the point.  The state tried to paint a picture of a violent mother who actively killed her child, they didn't have concrete evidence to make that case.   

Simply put, they couldn't put the duct tape in her hand as the cause of death. 

Smells in cars can be caued by many things, and if push came to shove the argument could be made that the body WAS in the car, but that doesn't mean that Casey actively killed the child.  Once the defense introduced accidental death as a consideration it changed the trial.  The state had to prove that she killed her daughter, AND that it was premeditated.  They never had the evidence to do that and would have been better off going forward with ONLY the manslaughter charge- as they could have focused more on the evidence instead of Casey's actions. 

The behavior is explained simply by saying that she reacted badly- out of fear, out of grief out of anything- people react in different ways and even just plain STUPID ways.  The argument can be made that the tattoo was a tribute by a loving mother celebrating her daughter's life.  Her partying was an attempt to escape from a reality she couldn't cope with, the lies can be written off as someone trying to deny the reality of a horrible situation.  Whether I believe that or not is of no consequence.  They are all legally plausible explanations, and are together enough to create legal reasonable doubt. 

If people are upset with the verdict, they need to look not at the defendant, but at the prosecution, who thought it was a slam-dunk case and went forward when they shouldn't have. 

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other.  That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called.  They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body?  There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else.  Sorry.

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have.  There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all).  That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by catlvr976 

I was wondering, as I haven't really foloowed the case....who/where is the little girls' father? 

It's unknown and will probably remain unknown as Casey refuses to be honest about it.  She did make a claim on one guy and he acted as a father until he got a paternity test.

[insidevoice]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other.  That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called.  They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

Oh, I absolutely realize that wasn't their case.  In fact, I'm not sure they were anticipating it as an opening statement.  However, once that came about, they needed to change their approach. 

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body?  There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else.  Sorry.

I've had the unfortunate experience on a couple occasions (I've worked in emergency medical response, and I also have been involved in search and rescue as well as emergency response to natural disasters. I won't dispute that there is nothing else quite like it (other than other large dead animals.)  I wouldn't dispute that there was evidence of decomposition in the vehicle, in fact.  The problem is proving that Casey actually murdered the child. 

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have.  There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all).  That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

I think it shouldn't have been a capital murder case. They did have a great deal of evidence, and if they had simply gone forward with manslaughter or negligent homicide, I suspect there would have been a conviction. They pressed on with  it as a capital murder case because there was a lot of pressure from the public to go forward with it as such. 

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?

Honestly, whether I think someone is guilty or not isn't how I look at things like this.  My interest lies in whether or not the state meets the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've spent the last couple years working on a court monitoring program in my state that focuses on violent crimes - including murders- related to domestic violence. About six months into it, I realized I couldn't look at things through my eyes any longer.  I learned to analyze it only through the legal system as it exists, to watch the cases as they are presented, and it was really hard for me to accept that the defense has absolutely no obligation to prove that the defendant is innocent.  They only need to prove that the prosecution doesn't have an airtight case.  For someone who is absolutely outraged at violence perpetrated by family members, and who has been active in domestic violence outreach and education since I was very young I struggle with this.  I had to turn off my emotional response while evaluating cases, and since then, I can't let myself look at it from a 'what I think' point of view. 

[Mulvah]

I guess the prosecutor's worst fear came true - common sense just isn't common.  Sad.
 

Originally Posted by insidevoice 


Originally Posted by Mulvah 

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other.  That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called.  They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

Oh, I absolutely realize that wasn't their case.  In fact, I'm not sure they were anticipating it as an opening statement.  However, once that came about, they needed to change their approach. 

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body?  There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else.  Sorry.

I've had the unfortunate experience on a couple occasions (I've worked in emergency medical response, and I also have been involved in search and rescue as well as emergency response to natural disasters. I won't dispute that there is nothing else quite like it (other than other large dead animals.)  I wouldn't dispute that there was evidence of decomposition in the vehicle, in fact.  The problem is proving that Casey actually murdered the child. 

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have.  There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all).  That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

I think it shouldn't have been a capital murder case. They did have a great deal of evidence, and if they had simply gone forward with manslaughter or negligent homicide, I suspect there would have been a conviction. They pressed on with  it as a capital murder case because there was a lot of pressure from the public to go forward with it as such. 

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?

Honestly, whether I think someone is guilty or not isn't how I look at things like this.  My interest lies in whether or not the state meets the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've spent the last couple years working on a court monitoring program in my state that focuses on violent crimes - including murders- related to domestic violence. About six months into it, I realized I couldn't look at things through my eyes any longer.  I learned to analyze it only through the legal system as it exists, to watch the cases as they are presented, and it was really hard for me to accept that the defense has absolutely no obligation to prove that the defendant is innocent.  They only need to prove that the prosecution doesn't have an airtight case.  For someone who is absolutely outraged at violence perpetrated by family members, and who has been active in domestic violence outreach and education since I was very young I struggle with this.  I had to turn off my emotional response while evaluating cases, and since then, I can't let myself look at it from a 'what I think' point of view. 

Do you think she did murder her child regardless of what you believe the evidence shows?

I can't tell if you want to skirt the question or not, but, do you believe Scott Peterson should have been found guilty based upon the evidence?

[insidevoice]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

I guess the prosecutor's worst fear came true - common sense just isn't common.  Sad.
 

Do you think she did murder her child regardless of what you believe the evidence shows?

I can't tell if you want to skirt the question or not, but, do you believe Scott Peterson should have been found guilty based upon the evidence?

I guess my point is that what I think doesn't really matter.  Nor should it. 

From an entirely personal point of view- yes, I think Casey was involved in her daughter's death, and yes, I think Scott Peterson murdered his wife. In the Peterson case, I think the prosecution did a better job of putting the pieces together.  I still don't think it should have been a capital case, but they did make a better case.  Also, as someone vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I find anything short of a videotape of the crime and 50 eyewitnesses with perfect recall and impeccable character (yes, I realize that doesn't happen) insufficient evidence for a capital case. 

[Mulvah]

Originally Posted by insidevoice 

I guess my point is that what I think doesn't really matter.  Nor should it. 

From an entirely personal point of view- yes, I think Casey was involved in her daughter's death, and yes, I think Scott Peterson murdered his wife. In the Peterson case, I think the prosecution did a better job of putting the pieces together.  I still don't think it should have been a capital case, but they did make a better case.  Also, as someone vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I find anything short of a videotape of the crime and 50 eyewitnesses with perfect recall and impeccable character (yes, I realize that doesn't happen) insufficient evidence for a capital case. 

Your point wasn't lost on me.  However, I guess the difference between myself and those that would vote not guilty despite believing a murder took place is that I could not live with myself if I voted not guilty.  As a juror, I would have to vote guilty if common sense, reasonable evidence pointed towards guilt.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is nice to hear how others view this. 

Edited by Mulvah - 7/5/11 at 3:23pm

[lovingmommyhood]

I think it is an atrocity that she was acquitted. She admitted to being present at her daughter's death. The fact that she had duct tape on her skull and the fact that she was dumped in a swamp, bagged in garbage bags ((who knows how as Jose Baez said himself 'we'll never know' how handy.)) should have at LEAST gotten Miss Anthony aggravated child abuse. It's disgusting. I've been following this case since day 1, three years ago and watched every single day of jury selection and trial. It's a very sad day. Talk about losing faith in the justice system. Bleh. She'll be a free woman on Thursday. Citizens beware. 

[VocalMinority]

Originally Posted by Mulvah 

I am sick over the verdict.  I honestly feel ill that I live in this country right now.

I feel sick over the verdict, too.  

But if you listened to the judge's instructions to the jury, one was "To find her guilty, you must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was caused by a premeditated criminal act on Casey's part" (my paraphrasing).  Unfortunately, I think that was a nearly insurmountable thing to overcome, given the circumstances.  Casey's outrageous, infuriating, narcissistic, mind-boggling behavior makes it seem obvious that WHATEVER happened was her fault...but no one knows what happened.  

Does Casey seem sufficiently selfish and emotionally detached to be capable of chloroforming her toddler, smothering her with duct tape and driving around with her in the trunk?  There can't be any question in anyone's mind that she IS.

But, toddlers DO die by accident.  They drown in pools or bathtubs.  They put things into their mouths that they shouldn't and can be poisoned.  They choke on things.  They get mini-blind cords wrapped around their necks.  Does Casey ALSO seem sufficiently out-of-touch with reality and - again - emotionally detached from her child, to have found Caylee accidentally dead and to have put duct tape over her mouth and tossed her in the woods down the street, thinking "People will believe someone else did this"?  Yes.  

The prosecution meant to be rhetorical, in asking, "Who would take an accident and make it look like murder?" (my paraphrasing).  But would you put that past Casey?  Calling 9-1-1, feeling guilt, mourning and holding a funeral are rational responses to a child's accidental death.  Casey isn't rational.  She seemed to think she could indefinitely keep her parents from realizing that a child who lived in their home was missing.  She took police to an office she no longer worked in.  She invented a kidnapping nanny.  Did she do those things because she's loony; or because she's cunning and calculated and understood how it behooved her, to make herself look unstable?  Who knows?  But either way, yes, she's a person who might have taken an accident and reacted to it SO inappropriately that she made it look like murder.

And she wasn't prosecuted for being so disturbingly inappropriate; for failing to be despondent at the loss of her daughter; for being so hugely and infuriatingly self-centered.  She was charged with killing her daughter with a premeditated, criminal act.  Without knowing how poor, little Caylee died, how could the jury really know?

As far as our country, I'm glad we can't sentence people to death for being detestable.

I do, however, have grave doubts that a jury would've let Casey walk, if she were a father.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Jeannine 

As far as our country, I'm glad we can't sentence people to death for being detestable.

I do, however, have grave doubts that a jury would've let Casey walk, if she were a father.

Or non-white.

The prosecutor was also snickering, or laughing during the defense closing, which is terrible manners, and very well could have had the jury questioning just how serious the prosecution really was about the whole case. 

I think the prosecution should have realized a LONG time ago that they didn't have enough evidence for Capital Murder.  They likely WOULD have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge - but they weren't trying for a conviction on a lesser charge - they wanted the death penalty. 

And yeah, she probably should have been charged with child abuse, or manslaughter.  Problem is, the Jury doesn't make the charges, they only make the verdict.  The prosecution simply didn't have enough evidence for capital murder, and they should have tried her on lesser charges.