# Casey Anthony Trial



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

Anyone following this trial? Tomorrow is day 3. It is amazing the stuff the defense is bringing out. If any of it is true - that is one screwed up family. Sad stuff no matter what, a little girl's life has been taken....


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Is it on TV? I watched/ listened to the entire OJ trial(worked for myself) was floored when they said he was Not Guilty. I'm hearing that the Casey Trial is going to be another Circus.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

what is some of the stuff that is being said about the family?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

The defense is claiming that the little girl drowned in the swimming pool and her body was found by Casey's dad, wo helped to cover it up. They are also saying that her dad used to sexually abuse her and that he used that mental hold over her to make her do what he wanted as far as hiding the body.

The father has denied the allegations.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

That Grandpa abused the Daughter,and so did the Brother. The defense Lawyer is married to a guy in prison. They say she is wacky.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Is it on TV? I watched/ listened to the entire OJ trial(worked for myself) was floored when they said he was Not Guilty. I'm hearing that the Casey Trial is going to be another Circus.


I can tell you from what I know about the OJ trial I could not have voted him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Main sticking point is/was the lack of blood evidence in his car and home.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The defense appears to be trying the classic "turn the perpetrator, into the real victim". Never mind what happened to the child.

The jury will probably buy it

If it is true on what she did to her child, then gettin the death penlty, is letting her off, much too easy.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

plowjockey said:


> The defense appears to be trying the classic "turn the perpetrator, into the real victim". Never mind what happened to the child.
> 
> The jury will probably buy it
> 
> If it is true on what she did to her child, then gettin the death penlty, is letting her off, much too easy.


Agreed!


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

7thswan said:


> The defense Lawyer is married to a guy in prison. They say she is wacky.


????? Not sure who you are talking about. Casey Anthony's lawyer (defense lawyer) is Jose Baez.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Is it on TV? I watched/ listened to the entire OJ trial(worked for myself) was floored when they said he was Not Guilty. I'm hearing that the Casey Trial is going to be another Circus.


Yes, it's on TV on cable channel HLN, and you can google Casey Anthony Trial and there are news reports and videos daily from the trial.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

TheMartianChick said:


> The defense is claiming that the little girl drowned in the swimming pool and her body was found by Casey's dad, wo helped to cover it up. They are also saying that her dad used to sexually abuse her and that he used that mental hold over her to make her do what he wanted as far as hiding the body.
> 
> The father has denied the allegations.


Seriously, I think this is possible. The more I read about the history of her Dad I think this is possible. Even his mistress that he is/was having an affair with says he told her Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed.

I think it's possible that Casey was sexually abused over and over as a child, and that is why she acts so robotically. All of the witnesses so far say that she was a very good Mom that loved her DD dearly, that she would never kill her. So time will tell with this trial. It is doubtful that we will ever know the truth. Her family seems pretty messed up though....


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

SageLady said:


> Seriously, I think this is possible. The more I read about the history of her Dad I think this is possible. Even his mistress that he is/was having an affair with says he told her Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed.
> 
> I think it's possible that Casey was sexually abused over and over as a child, and that is why she acts so robotically. All of the witnesses so far say that she was a very good Mom that loved her DD dearly, that she would never kill her. So time will tell with this trial. It is doubtful that we will ever know the truth. Her family seems pretty messed up though....


She is a sociopath who can lie as easily as she breathes. None of these allegations came up until she hired a lawyer to cook up these stories to cast doubts.

You have been suckered.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I had to listen to this for 3 hours yesterday as the lady I was cleaning for was watching it. Grrr!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

SageLady said:


> ????? Not sure who you are talking about. Casey Anthony's lawyer (defense lawyer) is Jose Baez.


Ya, I heard a clip and it was of a male Attorny. I had read about this Female attorny... so much for getting any factual info i guess.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> I can tell you from what I know about the OJ trial I could not have voted him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Main sticking point is/was the lack of blood evidence in his car and home.


The blood all over the Bronco and the bloody glove behind OJ's house. Bloody cloths.I don't believe in the "planted evidence" theory. All cloths have the same preservative that they use in DNA samples of blood-it is in laundry detergent.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

OK, father finds her drown in a pool. Happens fairly often. Even if he might have been the father of it, accidental drowning (I just took eyes away for no more than a minute) story would have lifely been acepted.

Once that didn't happen then the criminal side steps in.

I wonder in the alstopsy (sp?) it they found water in the lungs.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Jan 9, 2009)

No. There seems to be constantly about 3 or 4 of these sort of high profile murder cases that for whatever reason persist at a sort of chronic level in the news but to me I just see the headlines and they all blur together. Not even sure of any of the details.

Although I have to admit I've clicked on and read some of the coverage of the cute U.S. girl in Italy who is involved in the murder case.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Ken Scharabok said:


> OK, father finds her drown in a pool. Happens fairly often. Even if he might have been the father of it, accidental drowning (I just took eyes away for no more than a minute) story would have lifely been acepted.
> 
> Once that didn't happen then the criminal side steps in.
> 
> I wonder in the alstopsy (sp?) it they found water in the lungs.


I think that there wasn't much left to test for when they found the child's body. If I recall correctly, the coroner could not determine the cause of death.


----------



## fffarmergirl (Oct 9, 2008)

I doubt you will ever find a perpetrator who wasn't a victim. If Caley had grown up I wonder what type of person she would have become. She was raised in the same family as Casey - I wonder if she would have become much the same type of person. 

Casey behaves like a sociopath.

I often wonder at what age a person goes from being a victim to being a perpetrator. Our legal system has decided it's 18. I guess you have to draw the line somewhere.

Anybody want to venture a guess what really happened? My guess is that Casey wanted to go to a party or was having somebody over and her parents wouldn't babysit. Caley would have gotten in the way so Casey locked her up in the trunk and told her to be quiet. When she wouldn't stop crying, casey taped her mouth shut. Her nose was plugged and she suffocated, and Casey didn't even notice until after the party. When her parents found out, Casey threatened to turn her father in for child molestation unless he kept his mouth shut and helped her find a place to hide the body.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Wasn't there evidence of possible ways of killing the child on Casey's computer, and chloroform being used?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

fffarmergirl said:


> When her parents found out, Casey threatened to turn her father in for child molestation unless he kept his mouth shut and helped her find a place to hide the body.


You want to label a man a sexual predator on the testimony of a desperate sociopath?

That is just plain sick.

She told her ex boyfriend that a relative tried to touch her boobie once but doesn't tell him that her father abused her? Yeah, right.......


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Child molestation is terrible and very real, but there are two instances, that when allegations are revealed, for the very first time, that I have a very tough time buying.

1. Murder trials. The Menendez bothers boned up on their fake crying, to save them from death row. Worked like a charm, as they are at least enjoying life in prison.

2.Personal biography books. Rosanne Barr (Arnold), Drew Carey and others, seem to keep these "skeletons" well hidden, their entire lives, but speak candidly, almost nonchalantly, about these crimes, during their book promotion tours.

This case has now turned from a murder trial against Casey Anthony, for brutally killing her child, to a child molestion trial against her father, in the eyes of the jury, IMO.

Just wait and see.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Wasn't there evidence of possible ways of killing the child on Casey's computer, and chloroform being used?


There appeared to be enough evidence, of all types, to make this a slam-dunk conviction.

That is, until allegations of child molestation, to a young Casey, by her father, many years ago.

I would bet, that this "bombshell", is now all that the jury will be able to focus on. 

Hmmm. Didn't they find a child's skeleton buried, with the mouth wrapped in duct tape?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> OK, father finds her drown in a pool. Happens fairly often. Even if he might have been the father of it, accidental drowning (I just took eyes away for no more than a minute) story would have lifely been acepted.
> 
> Once that didn't happen then the criminal side steps in.
> 
> I wonder in the alstopsy (sp?) it they found water in the lungs.


The child's body was a skeleton only, when found buried in a shallow grave, with duct tape wrapped around the skull.

At one time, for some unkown reason, Casey Arnold borrowed a digging shovel from her neighbor.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

7thswan said:


> The blood all over the Bronco and the bloody glove behind OJ's house. Bloody cloths.I don't believe in the "planted evidence" theory. All cloths have the same preservative that they use in DNA samples of blood-it is in laundry detergent.


It was stupid jury members, that let OJ walk, IMO. Just blink at some people and they will have "reasonable doubt".

The defense throws so much garbage at them, that they can't even think any more. 

Seen it myself, serving on a jury.

It will happen on this trial too.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

plow jockey said:


> It was stupid jury members, that let OJ walk, IMO. Just blink at some people and they will have "reasonable doubt".
> 
> The defense throws so much garbage at them, that they can't even think any more.
> 
> ...


You are right ,I remember now,the duct tape. Reading a couple of books about the OJ trial,after it, one thing became a question,discussion brought up. How many people know the difference between,- a reasonable AMMOUNT of doubt, and if the Doubt one has is Reasonable.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The defense is just trying to muddy the waters enough to get one juror to stick to a not guilty verdict. That's all they need and they will probably get it. Look how many on this board they have convinced all already.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

If this was a man who was accused of killing this kid we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He would preemptively be declared guilty, any excuse he used would be meaningless. 

When a woman is accused of something like this, the feminist defense league rears it's warty head and explains why it is always somehow a mans fault, you just have to dig deep enough. Typical BS.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

tinknal said:


> She is a sociopath who can lie as easily as she breathes. None of these allegations came up until she hired a lawyer to cook up these stories to cast doubts.
> 
> You have been suckered.


George Anthony's mistress herself has said that he confided in her that Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed. That is not coming from Casey Anthony, but from the woman he is/was having an affair with.

And it is definitely possible that Casey Anthony could have been sexually abused by her father which might account for her bizarre behavior.

I don't think I have been suckered, just considering all of the info being presented. Like I said earlier, we will probably never know the real truth in all of this. I just hope there is some justice for little Caylee.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

SageLady said:


> And it is definitely possible that Casey Anthony could have been sexually abused by her father which might account for her bizarre behavior.


She _could_ abused by her mother. She _could_ have been raised by Bigfoot. She _could _have had her brain replaced by Aliens........

No one is at fault, and everyone is a victim.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

SageLady said:


> George Anthony's mistress herself has said that he confided in her that Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed. That is not coming from Casey Anthony, but from the woman he is/was having an affair with.
> 
> And it is definitely possible that Casey Anthony could have been sexually abused by her father which might account for her bizarre behavior.
> 
> I don't think I have been suckered, just considering all of the info being presented. Like I said earlier, we will probably never know the real truth in all of this. *I just hope there is some justice for little Caylee*.


Don't count on it.

The jury has now been poisoned, by the molestation allegations and the "mistress" (yuck, you'd think one could do a little better), etc. etc. is going to be side-show media circus acts and nothing more.

The jury members heads, have probably already exploded, from so much information. They are done-for, as far as being rational.

The fact that a little girl was very likely abused, then murdered and buried in a shallow grave, likely by her own "mother", really means little, in the case any more.

This is justice in America, 2011.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

7thswan said:


> The blood all over the Bronco and the bloody glove behind OJ's house. Bloody cloths.I don't believe in the "planted evidence" theory. All cloths have the same preservative that they use in DNA samples of blood-it is in laundry detergent.


There was very little blood (IIRC the total amount would equal less than two drops) in the Bronco. I find the theory he killed two people with a blade with one of them putting up a struggle then managed to clean himself up to the point he got next to no blood in his vehicle a bit hard to swallow. Especially with the time line needed for all of this to happen.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I thought the daughter was found in a plastic garbage bag at the foot of a telephone pole or such.

Want something to look like a drowning, put the person in a pool or such and use the Himerick (sp?) manuver on them while underwater. Air will be forced out of the lungs, creating a vacumm, which is then filled by water.

This is going off subject, but I firmly believe OJ did it. The case was lost by the prosecutors, not the defenders. Well, actually before that when the lead prosecutors agreed with Black Civil Rights activists to hold the trial in LA rather than Bentwood. And, yes, there are several things which bother me, such as why two bloody gloves.

Perhaps I am vain, but I suspect I could have put on a better proscutution than what LA did.

Ah, The Fight of the Century, which happens several times a year. Given 24/7/365 news, yeah they have to fill those minutes.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> This is going off subject, but I firmly believe OJ did it. The case was lost by the prosecutors, not the defenders. Well, actually before that when the lead prosecutors agreed with Black Civil Rights activists to hold the trial in LA rather than Bentwood. And, yes, there are several things which bother me, such as why two bloody gloves.



The prosecution had DNA evidence and lots of it. It does not get much better than that, for a conviction. A confession maybe?

It was a dumb jury, IMO, who probably spent more time, worrying whether Mark Furhman, really was a racist or not, instad of focusing, that DNA verified blood stains, of OJ and his victims, were found all over OJ's world.

Some jurors may have just not wanted to convict OJ, because they did not want to put a sports star and celibrity, behind bars.

IMO, many jurors already have plenty of doubt, in their head, long before they are called to serve. They will gladly dismiss the facts and focus intently of all of the fluff, the defense presents, to cloud their decision making process.

It's a textbook defense move. Give them all the "reasonable doubt" they need, for a "not guilty" veridct, or at least a hung jury.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> The prosecution had DNA evidence and lots of it. It does not get much better than that, for a conviction. A confession maybe?
> 
> It was a dumb jury, IMO, who probably spent more time, worrying whether Mark Furhman, really was a racist or not, instad of focusing, that DNA verified blood stains, of OJ and his victims, were found all over OJ's world.
> 
> ...


I agree and that is the problem with all high profile cases. People see them on the news for weeks with all the pro and con arguments by the talking head lawyers and have their minds made up. The 2 or 3 left on the jury who never heard of the case are usually pretty dumb and can be swayed by slick talking lawyers. All it takes is one juror with reasonable doubt or a reason to fake reasonable doubt.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

You can change cases any which way you want depending Lawyers,PA. LE and Judges.

Seen a guy looking at 40 years on a misdemeanor because him and the PA got into a argument.But with a Good Lawyer got Probation still messed his life up.

Know of a woman that got murdered by her Husband because of the people he knew people didn't find the truth until he died.

Knew a Girl that give her Kids Sleeping Pills,put them down for Bed,soaked them with Charcoal Lighter,lit it and went to a neighbors.Oh my poor woman lost her Kids,she sees she has to do something to cover what she had done.She moves in with he Mom,middle of night sets her moms place on fire.Oh my poor Girl someone is after her.

Law didn't buy this arrested her,she was to be in Jail,but in truth she was at the Sheriffs house for a year.Come time to go to trial all evidence was lost  :whistlin: She was released all charges dropped.

big rockpile


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

plow jockey said:


> The prosecution had DNA evidence and lots of it. It does not get much better than that, for a conviction. A confession maybe?
> 
> It was a dumb jury, IMO, who probably spent more time, worrying whether Mark Fuhrman, really was a racist or not, instead of focusing, that DNA verified blood stains, of OJ and his victims, were found all over OJ's world.
> 
> ...


That's what a number of experts say, the DNA was overwhelming for the Jury to understand, and they blame that on the Prosecutors, for not making it easier to absorb.


Just like the old saying: Why Baffle them with Brillance when you can Blind them with BS; this is what we'll se in the Casey case.


----------



## therunbunch (Oct 5, 2009)

I guess people aren't held accountable for their actions. It shouldn't matter what happened in your past.. there is NO EXCUSE for murdering your child.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Agree. OJs trail was the first prominent one in which forensic science player was a significant player Did the jury understand the significance? Highly likely not. However, juries since have become more education on it. I know some attorneys who say there is a CSI mentality. If you can't prove it with forensics, doubt goes to defendenr.

After the trial one talking head interviewed one of the jury members. Guy had to be in his 80s and had have a grandson speak on his behalf.

OUTRAGE: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder by Vincent Bugliosi. LONG and VERY tedious. Saving it for my flight to Europe in Septebmer.

Not brought up on TV, but apparently one woman came forward to say she saw OJ in is white Ford Bronco at an intersection between his and Nicole's houes at exactly the timeline the prosecutors wanted to make. However, since she went to police frist, the prosecutors didn't consider her a credible witness. Heck, put her on the stand and let the defense try to undo her story.

OJ's trial was basically over when Chris Darden dared OJ to try on one of the bloody gloves.

Related to Casey, we had one case in Nasvhille in which a mother left two young children in a car during a lot day while she partied.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I read Outrage right after it came out. Just got the book Without a Doubt by Marcia Clark, from a garage sale. The prosecution definitely messed up putting on the glove. No common sense on that one. Ever try to put on your leather gloves/boots(dried) after riding in the rain, not happening, X 100 over a rubber glove.


----------



## samm (Dec 6, 2008)

i just have a hard time with lawyers...they both ( def/pros) twisting half truths and acting like someone in the screen actors guild to try and convince people......the truth is just hard to dig out of all the mess...ive only been on one jury so far...and after we didnt find in favor of the DA he made a remark to us...'why dont ya just throw her a parade"......just really jerky.......i hope i never have to go to trial my self or heaven forbid one of my family.....i usually dont get picked for the jury...i just tell them honestly how i feel in the jury questioning portion....and they dont want me...i do hope the truth can come out in calie's case

samm


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

This entire case is owned lock, stock, and barrel, by HLN News. I jokingly mentioned to the GF that a few years back, Nancy Grace had commercials out asking for a murder/kidnap/rape trial, that involved cute children and good looking parents. That's when they found the Anthony's. HLN is making a fortune off of this. Anyone ever wonder just where HLN got all the videos and fotos of the Anthonys???? The Anthony's are getting rich off this...


tinknal said:


> If this was a man who was accused of killing this kid we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He would preemptively be declared guilty, any excuse he used would be meaningless.
> _
> When a woman is accused of something like this, the feminist defense league rears it's warty head and explains why it is always somehow a mans fault, you just have to dig deep enough. Typical BS._


Guess you don't watch Jane Valez Mitchell (or whatever the psychopath that comes on before Nancy (Hate) Grace comes on). Jane's always railing about the War On Women, and how Evil Men are always doing bad things to Females. This psycho rants and rails, just as Nancy Grace does, about the Evil "Tot Mom"...



SageLady said:


> I don't think I have been suckered, just considering all of the info being presented.
> .


Anyone that has any opinion prior to open testimony has already been suckered. The HLN, the Hate network, has ranted, frothing at the mouth ranting, for the last couple of years, about this case. I dislike with a passion watching HLN, but the GF loves it, and I let her have her telly time... I've seen it over and over, anytime a guest comes on and crosses the two sister witches of Jane and Nancy, they cut them off. If 'you' (as a guest commentator or guest) don't acknowledge that Jane or Nancy's 'poo' smells sweet, your in for a rough time, and the nanosecond you present views not held by the host, your time is over.... no appeal.

If you watch HLN, you have been conditioned... Casey is guilty as can be. Jane and Nancy (and I guess you could call the Eunuch that's on the network too) have studied propaganda and mind control with the best of them.

You rarely get anything remotely resembling news from HLN. You do get a lot of gossip, a feel good story, a disgusto story, and some tripe, all on a 15 minute loop during the day.

I seriously think the New Madrid Fault could open up and swallow 14M people, and HLN would stick with the minute to minute Anthony trial updates.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

texican said:


> This entire case is owned lock, stock, and barrel, by HLN News. I jokingly mentioned to the GF that a few years back, Nancy Grace had commercials out asking for a murder/kidnap/rape trial, that involved cute children and good looking parents. That's when they found the Anthony's. HLN is making a fortune off of this. Anyone ever wonder just where HLN got all the videos and fotos of the Anthonys???? The Anthony's are getting rich off this...
> Guess you don't watch Jane Valez Mitchell (or whatever the psychopath that comes on before Nancy (Hate) Grace comes on). Jane's always railing about the War On Women, and how Evil Men are always doing bad things to Females. This psycho rants and rails, just as Nancy Grace does, about the Evil "Tot Mom"...
> 
> 
> ...


Texican, I think you hit the nail on the head!! Agree with most everything you've said here, just couldn't put it in words myself....


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

SOOOOO tired of this. Living in FL it is everywhere. ACK! I do love that her defense is basically "She's a liar. Borna dn raised that way." Now I'll put her on the stand and have her tell you!

Like the jury will belive the Gal who's defender has already told us she is liar. Oy VEy!


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

The funny part is that I don't think they necessarily had Casey at the beginning of the trial. The body was so decomposed that no cause of death could be determined, much less a ruling of homocide. The evidence is all circumstancial. I think she had a good shot at acquital.

ABC has had some good (logical) commentary on this. They reminded us that the prosecutor must "prove" that it was murder, then prove that Casey did it. Just the suggestion that the girl drowned would likely create reasonable doubt. I believe she might have gotten off. The defense could have stopped there, but didn't. 

This whole story about abuse, and the father's involvement has shifted the burden from the prosecution to the defense. If the defense can't prove the abuse, or at least the father's involvement in the cover up, then she'll be found guilty regardless of the lack of hard evidence.

I guess we'll all just have to wait and see.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

I completely agree with Texican.

I discovered HLN on my cable service about 3 months ago

I can't watch anymore of Nancy Grace & Jane Valez. They have an agenda & it ain't justice, IMO

Its sad & tragic what happened to that child. HLN harps on it so much, almost like it's the 1st crime that's ever been committed against a child, in all of human history.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

OK, a dumb question. In a badly decomposed body can they tell the difference between Chorine (as used in swimming pools) and Choraform (sp?).

You may not remember the case of a young woman in CA who was charged with killing her Marine husband via arsonic. Was found guilty. Then apparently a number of people contacted the Defense Attorney to say if his ashes are still available, they can be tested for arsonic residue. Come up clean and she was released.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> OK, a dumb question. In a badly decomposed body can they tell the difference between Chlorine (as used in swimming pools) and Chloroform (sp?).
> 
> You may not remember the case of a young woman in CA who was charged with killing her Marine husband via arsenic. Was found guilty. Then apparently a number of people contacted the Defense Attorney to say if his ashes are still available, they can be tested for arsenic residue. Come up clean and she was released.


Depends on the lungs, then of course the blood. But none of this should matter if the condition of the body when found,was/is admitted into evidence. Duct tape on the head rules out a possibility of many things,other than force. 
If I remember correctly, arsenic shows up as a metal. After cremation how would one determine where the arsenic came from/was found in the body. If the body was buried, much more could be determined. Have ya noticed how many "suspect' deaths are cremated.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

My "wait a minute..." thought from a few minutes watching reports from this trial would revolve around the basic idea that the (ex-cop) father was at hand after an accidental drowning and involved in trying to hush the event up. IF so, what adult with a smidgen of intelligence would allow the mother to carry a rotting corpse around in her car for days afterwards? Or even to use her car for simple transport later on given how foul and lingering such an odor is? To me, that question simply eliminates the whole "molester-daddy" story as a typical professional-liar defense attorney fabrication.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

DryHeat said:


> My "wait a minute..." thought from a few minutes watching reports from this trial would revolve around the basic idea that the (ex-cop) father was at hand after an accidental drowning and involved in trying to hush the event up. IF so, what adult with a smidgen of intelligence would allow the mother to carry a rotting corpse around in her car for days afterwards? Or even to use her car for simple transport later on given how foul and lingering such an odor is? To me, that question simply eliminates the whole "molester-daddy" story as a typical professional-liar defense attorney fabrication.


My thoughts also. Additionally, an adult man with his background would not dispose of the body that close to his house and that easy to find. He would take it deep in the woods and bury it so that it would never be found.


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

DryHeat said:


> My "wait a minute..." thought from a few minutes watching reports from this trial would revolve around the basic idea that the (ex-cop) father was at hand after an accidental drowning and involved in trying to hush the event up. IF so, what adult with a smidgen of intelligence would allow the mother to carry a rotting corpse around in her car for days afterwards? Or even to use her car for simple transport later on given how foul and lingering such an odor is? To me, that question simply eliminates the whole "molester-daddy" story as a typical professional-liar defense attorney fabrication.





tinknal said:


> My thoughts also. Additionally, an adult man with his background would not dispose of the body that close to his house and that easy to find. He would take it deep in the woods and bury it so that it would never be found.


I think it is more likely that he would have either used chemicals or fire to reduce the remains to near unrecognizable form, with his past in law enforcement and knowing how evidence is collected and used. fire or chemicals would have destroyed the DNA enough to make identification impossible. A child of that age doesn't yet have any dental records for comparison. If her father was as heartless as she claims, this wouldn't have been a problem for him. And I also agree that what little remains were left would have been disposed of much further from their home. 

She must feel a great sense of desperation and that is behind this wildly improbable story. Or maybe, it is true...however I don't believe it to be. It is possible she didn't do this, but unlikely. It is unfortunate she felt she needed to put forth this version of events to the court because it is more likely to convict her than remaining silent would have. At least if she had kept quiet beyond the initial story she told, proving her guilty would have been extremely difficult. I know defense laywers must defend their clients in good faith, but it is really hard to believe her lawyer thinks this story is truthful.


----------



## kimmom2five (Apr 19, 2009)

I have a question. The prosecutors say Casey used chloroform to kill her. Where did she get that from? Is it that easy to get? To me she just doesn't seem smart enough to be able to find something like that.
And I have thought since the whole thing started that the mother is involved too.There is just something fishy about her.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Ah, yes, makes for an interesting trial.

Someone asked about the defense attorney's payments. I recall several hearings to where she is finanically broke and the state is paying for his fees, plus for expert witnesses.

It is harder to dispose of a body than one might think. How many have been found now in county landfills? Newspaper article... Two hunters discovered the remains of what appears to be a person missing for several years.

While a child may not have a dental record, DNA can stilll be extracted from the middle of a tooth. Heck, they are now extracting DNA from Egyptian Royal mummies.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Did ya all see the crowds going bonkers trying to get into the trial?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ode said:


> She must feel a great sense of desperation and that is behind this wildly improbable story. Or maybe, it is true...however I don't believe it to be. It is possible she didn't do this, but unlikely. It is unfortunate she felt she needed to put forth this version of events to the court because it is more likely to convict her than remaining silent would have. At least if she had kept quiet beyond the initial story she told, proving her guilty would have been extremely difficult. I know defense laywers must defend their clients in good faith, but it is really hard to believe her lawyer thinks this story is truthful.


She is one trial for her life, in this capital murder case.

Does not get much more desparate than that, so a perjury conviction, won't matter all that much.

She might as well lie through her teeth.

Her lawyers are only presenting what she has told them happened. Whether they believe her story, or not, does not matter.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Ah yes, they want a share of her 15 minutes of fame.

I use to run around with a group which included attorneys. When ask the replies were always the same on guilt - I really don't want to know. I'd rather defend someone on the possibility of their not being responsible than to have it admitted to me.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

My office is quite close to the neighborhood where Caley's body was found. She died June 2008 and the body wasn't discovered until December 2008. Meanwhile we had Tropical Storm Fay, which poured rain on us for several days without stop and areas that had previously been dry were flooded....for months. So the body was underwater for months, which explains why it decomposed so badly and they can't determine anything from the bones that remain.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

Well, after following this trial for a few days, I really think Casey killed Caylee with chloraform. It may have been accidental, she may have just wanted Caylee to sleep while she partied, but I think she definitely killed her. I don't believe she was molested by her father or brother either. I think she has a serious personality disorder - she has no conscience, she only worries about herself, she is a pathological liar. Perhaps she is both narcissistic and a psychopath....


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Sociopath.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

No way she is going to take the stand.

On OJ, he lost civil trial. They had two additional pieces of eividence. His friend (who drove Bronco) said on at one occasion he drove OJ home and OJ had forgetting gate. He jumped over that fence to get in. The found an photograph of him wearing the exact same brand of Italian shoes.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Bruno Mollys (sp) also the gloves, were the type OJ wore.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Those were the brand of shoes from Italy. As I recall they cost several hundred dollars a pair and only about 12 pairs were sold in the U.S. They found a receipt to where Nicole bought that particular brand and size of gloves, in England. Jury simply ignored it.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I like to watch the courtroom shows, although I stopped watching Court TV because of it became a show about the pundits, not about the case - and Nancy Grace just really gets my goat.

Actually, I haven't had TV in a while, so I didn't know what this was about until I read some of the posts.

As to OJ, the prosecution lost that case. They underestimated the jury. The prosecution thought because they were all 'uptown' folks, that jury would just swallow any kind of behavior on their part. The judge was just plain silly, Ms. Clark was such a twit, and Darden seemed almost real - until after the trial. 

As for the civil trial, the media was so enraged because OJ got off, I think anyone could have won a civil trail. No way was a civil jury going to take the kind of insults the criminal jury did - they would have found for the family with nothing presented.

It was a true travesty - 

I hope this trail has more reality to it and less show biz --


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I just found the TV site yesterday, watched a bit. The Defense is trying to make cadaver dogs look unreliable. I see nothing good in making a dog look bad. Not impressed with the defense.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

7thswan said:


> I just found the TV site yesterday, watched a bit. The Defense is trying to make cadaver dogs look unreliable. I see nothing good in making a dog look bad. Not impressed with the defense.


It's the defense team's job, to create "reasonable doubt". They'll throw out anything, no matter how lame, to sidetrack the jury from considering the facts.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Those were the brand of shoes from Italy. As I recall they cost several hundred dollars a pair and only about 12 pairs were sold in the U.S. They found a receipt to where Nicole bought that particular brand and size of gloves, in England. Jury simply ignored it.


I might be wrong but I could have sworn that the gloves were made by Isotoner. I remember being surprised that rich people wore the same type of stuff that the rest of the population did.


----------



## westbrook (May 10, 2002)

Zanax http://www.drugs.com/misspellings/zanax.html is given to children to put them to sleep commonly referred to as "Zaney Nanny"

Chloroform -- how to make, hundreds of not thousands of links here is the first one I found that made half way sense to me:
http://howtomakechloroform.com/

I am surprised at how many believe the rhetoric being presented by the defense.

Drowning... had the child drown, Mr. Anthony would have immediately called the police. While it may be a case of neglect, or child endangerment, the crime if there was one, would have not been as serious as Murder.

besides... why would there have been duct tape and a sticker over the babies mouth??

anyone hear the childhood friend on the stand saying when they were young, Casey would put stickers on dead animals and bury them where Cayle was found? well no matter.

this accusation that the father molested Casey.... if he had a propensity for children, he wouldn't have had a mistress. Men that like little girls don't care for women. 

Casey was a party girl, it was an accident that she killed her daughter, none-the-less, she did kill her by using drugs on her.

I had.. note the had... a friend when I was 21, she would meet me at a night club. She had told me she was having a hard time finding a baby sitter, when I asked her who was taking care of her son... she replied Robo.. meaning the cough syrup.. Robitussin. It was the last time we met. I was in shock!

So it doesn't surprise me that Casey would use Cloroform if Zanax is hard to get.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

Casey Anthony's lack of emotion is amazing....


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Don't remember name, but trial of a Marine wife said she poisoned him with arsonic. Prosecutors pointed out after she got the insurance money she had breast implants and partied with friends. Defense didn't call of psycholist (sp?) to testify perple greave in different ways.

She was found guilty. Later is was discovered his ashes could be tested for trace amounts of arsonic. First time I've seen a attorney (defense) have to testify to their own impotence in the original trial. Zippo arsonic found and prosecutors decided not to retry case.

On Scott Peterson one witness from college days said they had once talked about how to 'do away' with a body. Scott said he would tie weights to arms, legs and neck and dump body in ocean. I guess SF Bay was close enough. He also showed no emotion.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Remember this is a capital murder case to where she potentially faces the dealth penalty. FL executes prisoners on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

westbrook said:


> Zanax http://www.drugs.com/misspellings/zanax.html is given to children to put them to sleep commonly referred to as "Zaney Nanny"


*Zanny the nanny*...Wasn't that the supposed name of the nanny friend that Casey supposedly left her child with?


----------



## westbrook (May 10, 2002)

TheMartianChick said:


> *Zanny the nanny*...Wasn't that the supposed name of the nanny friend that Casey supposedly left her child with?


yes it was... Zenaida but, it is also what the mothers call Zanax which puts the children to sleep..hence Zaney the Nanny

I wonder that the nanny's name was that supposedly took care of Caylee for the time Casey was at work.... 

It has already been proven that Zenaida had only been on the scene a very short time and only to look at an apartment.


----------



## westbrook (May 10, 2002)

this is an interesting read from Lee Anthony

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/10/lee-anthony-and-zanny-nanny.html


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It was obvious early on that the whole family was loony toons. The whole clan would have been wonderful test subjects to determine once and for all whether or not waterboarding brings forth good information.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Remember this is a capital murder case to where she potentially faces the dealth penalty. FL executes prisoners on a fairly regular basis.


Not regularly enough, IMO.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

westbrook said:


> yes it was... Zenaida but, it is also what the mothers call Zanax which puts the children to sleep..hence Zaney the Nanny
> 
> I wonder that the nanny's name was that supposedly took care of Caylee for the time Casey was at work....
> 
> It has already been proven that Zenaida had only been on the scene a very short time and only to look at an apartment.


1) Casey didn't actually have a job or go to work.

2) The only Zenaida Gonzales located never met Casey. Zanny the Nanny is a fictional character from Casey's "other world" and I'm betting it's no coincidence that is what party mom's who drug their babies with Zanax call it.


----------



## acabin42 (May 11, 2002)

Just watched Dr. G's testimony. Wow......... that woman is good. And she made Masson look bad. 
I am a big fan of Dr. G


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

acabin42 said:


> Just watched Dr. G's testimony. Wow......... that woman is good. And she made Masson look bad.
> I am a big fan of Dr. G


Yes, she was great! I'm a big fan too.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

She said in 'her expert opinion' it was a homicide, but not specally who did what at what time.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

It is strong speculation, that the prosecution does not have a strong enough case for a murder 1 conviction, which will send her to death row.

They have no proof that she deliberately killed the child.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

If they can convict her of aggravated child abuse for the choroform and if that is a felony, I think Florida has a law re any death occuring during a felony that might at least keep her behind bars for life.


----------



## westbrook (May 10, 2002)

the defense attorney - with the beard... oh so boring! put me to sleep! can't imagine how the jury is going to stay awake!


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

They just announced that the Casey will not be taking the stand. I was surprised that so many people thought they would put her on the stand. She lied sooooo many times going round and round in circles telling all kinds of imaginary stories that contradicted herself; the prosecution would of torn her apart on the stand.

Prosecution is about to tear the grandmother's testimony apart, bringing in witnesses to verify that she was at work the day she claimed to have Googled the chloroform and other words dealing with killing. Looks like Casey may be proven to be the person who was home the day those words were Googled.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Haven said:


> They just announced that the Casey will not be taking the stand. I was surprised that so many people thought they would put her on the stand. She lied sooooo many times going round and round in circles telling all kinds of imaginary stories that contradicted herself; the prosecution would of torn her apart on the stand.
> 
> Prosecution is about to tear the grandmother's testimony apart, bringing in witnesses to verify that she was at work the day she claimed to have Googled the chloroform and other words dealing with killing. Looks like Casey may be proven to be the person who was home the day those words were Googled.


Does not matter, as the jury has already been poisoned long ago.

There is no prooof she killed the child, either accidently, or on purpose.

She will likely get a conviction, but it won't be murder one.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I also think not a death sentense. Something to keep her in prison for a long time though.

If I were on the jury, premediation would be a tough road to follow.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

The defense has proved absolutely nothing. I think Casey will be convicted, but for what I'm not sure. Hope she at least stays in jail for life. This has been one strange trial....


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

There are so many breaks and sidebars I've rather lost interest. Funny though. Usually you have one of three situations: strong case for and against (tie so to speak), strong case against or strong cae for. This one seems to be a weak case on both sides. I'm leaning way more towards an accidential homicide with attempting to cover it up afterwards. Involvement of others?

Small children drown in a swimming pool on a fairly regular basis. Call 911 and the case would be over in a matter of days.

Simply can't see a death penalty at this time. Plea bargain? Also simply cannot see the prosecutors hoping for a hung jury and retrial.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

It seems that our days of legal justice are over - the "Do the crime, do the time" thing. Anymore it seems whomever has the best lawyer is the one that wins.

It just seems odd that some people are even able to hire a lawyer. I'm not sure how somebody with morals could defend a person who has admitted to killing a person. (Not saying she did, I'm just saying in general.) How do some of these lawyers sleep at night - defending a known and admitted killer and possibly getting them to serve no time and go home and lead a "normal" life?

The way I see it, is that Casey is guilty. She is either guilty of murder, guilty of having the daughter murdered, or at the very least guilty of not reporting her child dying due to an accident. 

If her daughter did drown accidently, why hide it and try to cover it up? If this is what happened, either the child was left alone or some kind of neglect that Casey would go to the trouble of disposing of the body and then fabricating all the stories she did.

I personally think she either killed the daughter outright (or caused her death by mistake - maybe drugging her or something so Casey could go "out on the town" for the night. She should get the death penalty - and by that - I mean actually put to death - not spending years on death row. Right after the guilty verdict - she's taken away and given a lethal injection. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for Casey's boarding, food, and health care for the next ___ years?!?

I guess I just think the justice system is way too forgiving. Prison should be like a dungeon - dark and dirty where the prisoners are all in one room. Feed them bread and water only and if they kill it each other, that's just too bad. And anyone getting the death penalty - the penalty would be carried out right after the verdict - not years later (if at all) or put on hold with appeals, and more appeals.

At least that is my idea of justice. One wonders if the justice system was more harsh, if there would be less crime?


----------



## westbrook (May 10, 2002)

guilty!!


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

I wanna reach through the TV and slap the so-called "mistress" of George Anthony! She keeps giving different interviews to HLN and keeps saying that "he needs to take responsibility for what he's done (the affair)". She also got $4k frtom a tabloid for her "story", and then says she gave him the $4k. She changes her story more than Casey Anthony! One thing everyone keeps missing is when he texted her 4 days after Caylee's remains were found with "I want you in my life". (She keeps bringing it up that "he should have been grieving - what was he texting ME for?") like it was an unwelcome advance from a stranger. She told him that she was DYING of a brain tumor! Did it every occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, he was trying to give her something to hold on to to live longer, because he thought she was dying because she LIED and told him so! And, she came to HIM at the volunteer center, he did not seek her out (she admitted that!). She also said that he told her the death was an accidental drowning, but admitted on camera that he did not sound like he really believed what he was saying.

This woman is Looney Tunes!!!!!!!!


----------



## gaucli (Nov 20, 2008)

I have been thinking about what she used the duct tape for...and the only thing i can think of is while Caylee was drugged out on cloroform and Casey was partying...was she afraid that she would wake up and scream and someone might hear her? Just don't make sense to me.


----------



## Jenni979 (Jan 27, 2010)

I watched the trial & am waiting for the closing arguements tomorrow morning... 

Someone earlier asked about a member of the defense team being married to a convict; HEr name is Rosalie Bolin & she is married to a serial killer. She left her husband & kids to marry the killer after she met him while helping on his death denalty sentancing... Now Jose there dropped out of school in the 9th grade. He eventually got his GED & managed to finally get into the 3rd WORST lawschool in the US. After he graduated he was denied access to even attempt taking his bar exam for over 8 years because the governing board found him lacking as he was a deadbeat dad & had numerous financial & personal issues. He only ever tried DUI cases before 1 other murder case which he lost BIG TIME.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Michael W. Smith said:


> I guess I just think the justice system is way too forgiving. Prison should be like a dungeon - dark and dirty where the prisoners are all in one room. Feed them bread and water only and if they kill it each other, that's just too bad. And anyone getting the death penalty - the penalty would be carried out right after the verdict - not years later (if at all) or put on hold with appeals, and more appeals.
> 
> At least that is my idea of justice. One wonders if the justice system was more harsh, if there would be less crime?


Hey, there ya go, now that kid who went to the joint because of a bag of weed can come out as a full fledged animal. Great idea.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

tinknal said:


> Hey, there ya go, now that kid who went to the joint because of a bag of weed can come out as a full fledged animal. Great idea.


Don't they already? Not totally agreeing with Michael, but aren't all inmates actually students when they go to the Graduate School for Criminals.

I say work em sunup to sundown 6 days a week, so they don't have time to lounge around learning the finer techniques of criminal thuggery. I do know a few who left the 'Academy' and took the straight and narrow path... they didn't want to go back to the Texas Penal Farms, where you work out in the sun or rain year round, doing the kind of work they wouldn't do when they were free... 

................
I abhor having to listen to the drones on tv talking about this case (The GF has a thing for the Casey Case). It'll be interesting if they convict someone on strictly circumstantial evidence.

Funny, because the 'things' that stick in people's mind, would also convict me of the same things... my computer searches...:smack CSI agents would kill themselves if they had to "search" my truck... guarantee you on a 100 degree day, with a box of 'buzzard fat' in the back, there ARE maggots, and numerous other oogies... maybe this insight convinces me she isn't guilty as charged...


----------



## Jenni979 (Jan 27, 2010)

texican said:


> Don't they already? Not totally agreeing with Michael, but aren't all inmates actually students when they go to the Graduate School for Criminals.
> 
> I say work em sunup to sundown 6 days a week, so they don't have time to lounge around learning the finer techniques of criminal thuggery. I do know a few who left the 'Academy' and took the straight and narrow path... they didn't want to go back to the Texas Penal Farms, where you work out in the sun or rain year round, doing the kind of work they wouldn't do when they were free...


I totally agree...


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

texican said:


> Don't they already? Not totally agreeing with Michael, but aren't all inmates actually students when they go to the Graduate School for Criminals.
> 
> I say work em sunup to sundown 6 days a week, so they don't have time to lounge around learning the finer techniques of criminal thuggery. I do know a few who left the 'Academy' and took the straight and narrow path... they didn't want to go back to the Texas Penal Farms, where you work out in the sun or rain year round, doing the kind of work they wouldn't do when they were free...
> 
> ...


Got a Half Brother that sued the State of Texas and won because of the way he was treated while incarcerated there.Its been several years ago.

big rockpile


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

texican said:


> Don't they already? Not totally agreeing with Michael, but aren't all inmates actually students when they go to the Graduate School for Criminals.
> 
> I say work em sunup to sundown 6 days a week, so they don't have time to lounge around learning the finer techniques of criminal thuggery. I do know a few who left the 'Academy' and took the straight and narrow path... they didn't want to go back to the Texas Penal Farms, where you work out in the sun or rain year round, doing the kind of work they wouldn't do when they were free...
> 
> ...


I agree, to the point that they learn the value and rewards of an honest days work. There has to be a carrot with the stick.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Jenni979 said:


> Now Jose there dropped out of school in the 9th grade. He eventually got his GED & managed to finally get into the 3rd WORST lawschool in the US. After he graduated he was denied access to even attempt taking his bar exam for over 8 years because the governing board found him lacking as he was a deadbeat dad & had numerous financial & personal issues. He only ever tried DUI cases before 1 other murder case which he lost BIG TIME.


Baez is droning on and on and on and basically saying that the whole trial is a sham and foolish and never should have been held, and is really making an IDIOT out of himself. His voice is cracking, so I don't know if he's trying to fake tears for jury sympathy, or what, but if I was a juror, I would have tuned him out an hour ago. He's also coming across as very arrogant and condescending to the jury....if he's thinking he's winning points with them, he's WRONG. I've served on numerous juries, and jurors really don't appreciate being talked down to, and inferred to as being stupid.

I am certainly not impressed with him as a defense lawyer.


----------



## Wisconsin Ann (Feb 27, 2007)

I heard a bit of the prosecution's closing..then had to do chores. Came back in, he's done and they're waiting for Baez. I had lunch..they're still waiting for him to actually get started...and he starts talking. Sort of. Fumbling was more like it, I thought. Decided I'd just wait to hear the highlights of his closing later on...so I went out to mow the lawn. Came back in...he's still talking...so I took a shower..he's still talking....went upstairs to take a nap..and an hour later he's STILL talking. 

I tell ya...if I was on that jury, I'd be convicting Casey, then sending a note to the judge to ask if there's any crime they can convict BAEZ of.


----------



## charisma (Nov 13, 2007)

Wisconsin Ann said:


> I tell ya...if I was on that jury, I'd be convicting Casey, then sending a note to the judge to ask if there's any crime they can convict BAEZ of.


:goodjob: POTD award. ITA Wisconsin Ann. I can't stand Baez. Incompetent, foolish, egotistical, and ridiculous.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

Baez and the other defense attorney (Cheny Mason) talked for a total of FOUR HOURS. Yup, they added up the time on TV between the 2 of them. The 2nd lawyer basically just said the same stuff Baez did, except he seemed to me to really be trying to bully and intimidate the jury, the way he was reminding them very sternly of "your duty" and then he proceeded to give the jury instructions on what they can take into consideration and what they can't! I was waiting for the judge to say "wait a minute, that's MY territory", but I think he'll just wait until tomorrow and then tell them that they will listen to HIS instructions and nobody else's. The prosecution also gets the FINAL rebuttal when the jury is fresh tomorrow (because Baez took sooooo long today), so I'm hoping that they'll be a verdict pretty soon. I've heard that apparently Juror 4 told everyone in the beginning that she would have a hard time finding anyone guilty, so who knows. The defense kept talking all afternoon about "fantasy evidence". I sure hope the prosecution brings up the fact tomorrow that Caylee was a little girl who is now very much dead, and NOT just someone's fantasy. :flame:


----------



## tnokie (Jan 30, 2007)

I say she will get not guilty of murder,I don't agree whith that at all, but I just don't think they will be able to come up with a guilty verdict. Might get a lesser charge but I don't know what it could be. IMO it would a shame on the court syatem if she walks on this. Her attitude in court has been so arrogant that I just can't feel any sympathy for her.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

big rockpile said:


> Got a Half Brother that sued the State of Texas and won because of the way he was treated while incarcerated there.Its been several years ago.
> 
> big rockpile


But did he get 'paid'? Lots of folks get judgments, and lots of folks never get paid...

Did said half bro decide he wanted to commit a crime in the Republic of Texas again? If not, bully for him. Texas rarely molly coddles it's inmates... the goal is to make them 'grow up' and not want to ever ever come back. If he didn't like it, the system worked.

An old boy that's went to his heavenly reward spent two years down in Huntsville, for his drinking... they had him on farm detail. One morning he 'complained' to his supervising guard, out in the hayfield... said they should wait till the dew dried off the grass before baling, and they wouldn't have to waste time chopping the wet grass off the round bale rollers... Guard told him they made it a point to bale a few rolls 'early', just to break in the new hands and not let em think this was going to be 'easy'. I've 'cut' green hay off rollers, and it's a hot nasty terrible chore... rather hand scrub a 'backed up' toilet.

edited to add...
taking GF out to Red Lobster if Casey is acquitted... she thinks she's guilty... all I've seen is circumstantial evidence... I'm thinking there's a juror who's gonna 'bail' on the guilty vote...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

farmerpat said:


> I sure hope the prosecution brings up the fact tomorrow that Caylee was a little girl who is now very much dead, and NOT just someone's fantasy. :flame:


Unfortunately, this is about the only real fact, they have in the entire case.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Is it normal procedure these days for Lawyers,Prosecutors to drink bottled water,screwing on and off the cap? Rude and drove me nuts.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

This is one trial I wouldn't want to sit on the jury. Case is so 'off-the-wall', but then don't overlook the obvious.

When in Ohio I had a friend whose child when missing. Neighbood searches and all that. Turned out there was a gap between the kichen cabinets and ceiling, somehow the child got up there and went to sleep. As I recall, this was common practice for one of their cats, so may have had a tutor.

Problem is if the jury votes for capital felony, the cases will drag on for maybe anoher twenty years on various appeals. Lessor sentence, she may do much of it. I just get this feeling she isn't going to an outcast in a woman's prison. Too attractive (and, no, please don't blast me out of the water for that opinion).


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

texican said:


> But did he get 'paid'? Lots of folks get judgments, and lots of folks never get paid...
> 
> Did said half bro decide he wanted to commit a crime in the Republic of Texas again? If not, bully for him. Texas rarely molly coddles it's inmates... the goal is to make them 'grow up' and not want to ever ever come back. If he didn't like it, the system worked.
> 
> ...


Yea he got a Settlement.The State of Missouri was having Texas hold them because we didn't have room.Anyway they had Prisoners Cuffed laying down let Dogs chew on them.It was to be for Training.

It was all over the News.

big rockpile


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Verdict is NOT GUILTY!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ok, will she spend any time or just the time served. People are not happy.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I believe that they only thing they got her for is lying...I can't imagine that they would hold her for that considering how long she's already been in custody. She'll be at the bar in time for Happy Hour...

From the court blog:

Casey Anthony has been found guilty of four counts of providing false information to law enforcement in the case of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, who was slain in 2008.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/05/jury-reaches-verdict-in-casey-anthony-trial/?hpt=hp_t1


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Jury of her peers. That says it all.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

TheMartianChick said:


> I believe that they only thing they got her for is lying...I can't imagine that they would hold her for that considering how long she's already been in custody. She'll be at the bar in time for Happy Hour...
> 
> From the court blog:
> 
> ...


Sentencing is Thursday,Isn't that Ladies Night?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

7thswan said:


> Sentencing is Thursday,Isn't that Ladies Night?


Maybe she can ask the judge to have that postponed...Now I have the Kool & the Gang song, 'Ladies Night' stuck in my head!


----------



## lamoncha lover (Mar 1, 2009)

This is so sickening.
Ok then who lilled the baby. Who stuck tape over her face stuck her in garbage bags and dumped her body. Why did momma dearest lie?
insanity


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

What mother doesn't report her missing child for a whole month, and then she didn't report her missing, the grandparents did.

Poor, little girl.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

lamoncha lover said:


> This is so sickening.
> Ok then who lilled the baby. Who stuck tape over her face stuck her in garbage bags and dumped her body. Why did momma dearest lie?
> insanity


As angry as I am about the verdict, the truth is that the duct tape was not found over the girl's mouth. All the police found of her were bones. If the tape had ever been over her mouth, there would be no evidence of it as the flesh decomposed. The prosecution tried something slick at one point. They superimposed a photo of the little girl with a similar sized piece of duct tape over her face. It was never a fact or evidence that she had duct tape over her mouth.

It is a fact that this little girl is gone and they will never find out who killed her. If you accept the story that she drowned, then there is no reason to look for other answers. If someone comes forward later to confess to the crime, they will not be believed because the mother has spun this drowning tale... There will be no justice for Caylee...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

7thswan said:


> Jury of her peers. That says it all.


Can't blame the jury.

The prosecution's case was weak, from the get-go and Casey's lying stories to the defense, which they had to present in court, shot the case full of more holes, that it already had, which was plenty.

This trial was doomed from the start.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Can't blame the jury.
> 
> The prosecution's case was weak, from the get-go and Casey's lying stories to the defense, which they had to present in court, shot the case full of more holes, that it already had, which was plenty.
> 
> This trial was doomed from the start.


ain't that the truth


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

What verdict? On what charges? Please site a crediable source. She was charged with multiple offenses, from capital murder to lying to a law inforcement person.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

She was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges:

"_After just a day of deliberation, jurors informed the court at midday that they had reached a decision, and both sides in the case were ordered to assemble in the courtroom. 

*Anthony has been found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. She was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child.* But she was convicted on charges of misleading law enforcement." _(which carries a maximum sentence of 1 year for each count, and everyone is saying they'll probably let her go with time served, since she was held in jail for over 3 years.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...890173.html#s302813&title=Casey_Anthony_Trial


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

I think that if the district attorneys office had done its job properly Casey would not have been tried for murder but now that they had a rush to judgment and were beaten there are a lot of people who will still suffer. Casey needs help from doctors and she will never get it. I feel like the Florida justice system failed everyone. The prosecutor wanted to go out in a blaze of glory for killing a person who needs doctors help. 

This is a sad day for America. A little girl&#8217;s plight will never be known. 

People who think that this system of justice is good. See what it took to defend a person from a killer judge (he has sentenced 7 people to death) and a corrupt justice system including the cops. 

OK I opened my mouth again but someone out there needs to wake up to the police state we live in. 

It won&#8217;t take much and one of us could be there. For no good reason. Remember that.

And I changed my name to. Angry Dave. I am going down kicking and fighting. If we don&#8217;t do something soon we will be using guns.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

davel745 said:


> I think that if the district attorneys office had done its job properly Casey would not have been tried for murder but now that they had a rush to judgment and were beaten there are a lot of people who will still suffer. Casey needs help from doctors and she will never get it. I feel like the Florida justice system failed everyone. The prosecutor wanted to go out in a blaze of glory for killing a person who needs doctors help.
> 
> This is a sad day for America. A little girl&#8217;s plight will never be known.
> 
> ...


Whats the point in getting angry? The trial was fair.

Nearly everybody believes that she either killed or neglected the child causing death - their personal beliefs only - but no one is sure. 

If you were on trial for your life, would you want the jury to judge you on the evidence and facts of the case, or the jury's personal beliefs? 

The system works (more or less). The prosecution did not have a case.

They worked on it for 3 years and could not gather usuable evidence. Maybe there was none to be found.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

We have seen this in other murder trials of young women accused of killing their kids. Jurors are hesitant to convict a young mother. I think it is because the thought that a young woman could do such a thing is repulsive to most people and they believe there has to be more to the story. I have no doubt she killed the child. Maybe she didn't intend to, but she did. She is certainly deranged to some degree as evidenced by her lies and pretending nothing was wrong for 30 days. I will guarantee if this had been the child's dad on trial in the same circumstances the verdict would have been different.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

lamoncha lover said:


> This is so sickening.
> Ok then who lilled the baby. Who stuck tape over her face stuck her in garbage bags and dumped her body. Why did momma dearest lie?
> insanity


Any number of people "could have" committed this crime.... and there was simply no evidence presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was mom. Any verdict other than not guilty in this particular case would have been a verdict based solely on emotion... which our legal system is designed to prevent. Legal lynchings are no better than mob lynchings. I am very thankful we live in a country where the government is legally bound to provide proof, beyond reasonable doubt, prior to conviction and execution. They failed to provide any real evidence in this case... leaving a lot of room for reasonable doubt.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Any number of people "could have" committed this crime.... and there was simply no evidence presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was mom. Any verdict other than not guilty in this particular case would have been a verdict based solely on emotion... which our legal system is designed to prevent. Legal lynchings are no better than mob lynchings. I am very thankful we live in a country where the government is legally bound to provide proof, beyond reasonable doubt, prior to conviction and execution. They failed to provide any real evidence in this case... leaving a lot of room for reasonable doubt.


 Pretty much my feelings on it as well. Personally, I think going after the death penalty was a huge mistake because it raised the evidence bar way higher than the evidence they had supported...maybe if they had gone after a lesser charge they would have gotten a conviction and it didnt help that the prosecutor acted like a buffoon at times.

Its a sordid mess from a dysfunctional family and poor Kaylee will probably never get justice but whoever did this will be judged someday.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

salmonslayer said:


> Pretty much my feelings on it as well. Personally, I think going after the death penalty was a huge mistake because it raised the evidence bar way higher than the evidence they had supported...maybe if they had gone after a lesser charge they would have gotten a conviction and it didnt help that the prosecutor acted like a buffoon at times.
> 
> Its a sordid mess from a dysfunctional family and poor Kaylee will probably never get justice but whoever did this will be judged someday.


The jury did have options. I saw the judge read them the list. It went from first degree murder down to manslaughter. She certainly was guilty of something and her actions prove it.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

poppy said:


> The jury did have options. I saw the judge read them the list. It went from first degree murder down to manslaughter. She certainly was guilty of something and her actions prove it.


I feel the same way. Even if we believe the defences fairy tale story, then she is "guilty" of not reporting her daughter's death, illegally burying the body, etc.

Based on this verdict, if I find a body floating in my swimming pool I can just throw it in a bag and bury it in a swamp and go on with my life? I don't think so. I'm not sure there was enough for murder one, but she is certainly guilty of many crimes, that the jury didn't consider. Maybe the state can come back with more charges later, as long as they can avoid double jeopardy.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

poppy said:


> The jury did have options. I saw the judge read them the list. It went from first degree murder down to manslaughter. She certainly was guilty of something and her actions prove it.


 I agree with you poppy but the prosecutor erred IMHO by focusing on the death penalty aspects of the case and he just didnt get the job done. Its also clear I think that too many people watch CSI and want a neatlt tied up package of whiz bang forensic evidence...its rarely that clear.


----------



## SageLady (Jun 10, 2008)

She got away with murder, plain and simple. Lucky her....or not. I believe in karma.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

poppy said:


> The jury did have options. I saw the judge read them the list. It went from first degree murder down to manslaughter. She certainly was guilty of something and her actions prove it.


There was no real proof whatsovever, that she actually killed or neglected her daughter, causing death.

Whe was only found guilty of lying - big surprise there.


----------

