Is Casey Anthony Possibly Innocent?

[concentric]

How to make it implies to me she wanted to possess it not just inquire about it. It shows some knowledge that it wasn't obtainable through legal purchase. The duct tape shows me it could have been used to hold a soaked cloth in place. Chloroform only lasts 15 mins. ICA's intelligence or lack of may be key to show that she did not successfully make it so to speak nor did she realize the cloth fastened by tape, a child locked in a suffocating trunk could not breathe.

Oh carp! You mean to say that chloroform doesn't last long enough to knock out a toddler for a day or two in a trunk?

 

[SondraK]

Re - Is Casey Anthony Possibly Innocent?

All indications point to no.

Not in a million years, could I buy innocence. Accident???...maybe anger that got out of control....JMHO:seeya:

 

[strach304]

Finished reading page 1 - it's going to take awhile to get through this thread.

While I do, someone explain these factors ~

A text from CA to KC saying that they have a huge problem due to the Pontiac being towed. (indicating a united front)

A question from CA to KC asking 'why didn't she pick up the car?' (suggesting a plan gone wrong)

GA being so specific regarding what KC and Caylee were wearing on June 9 - oops, I mean June 16, 2008. This he claimed on July 16. I find GA's memory hard to fathom, in that, there was no way for him to know that would be the last day he'd ever see Caylee again.

Meaning she wanted an explanation but not wanting to be too demanding knowing Casey might tell her to kiss off. Showing ICA she knew she had been lying all this time. I believe LA explained it pretty well when he said she got busted for not being where she told her mother she was. Out of town.

Why didn't she put gas in it? Let it get towed. Just plain and simple let it get towed.

I think GA has shown many examples of trying to be very specific and helpful, this is one. In his deposition with the state he goes a little overboard about that duct tape on the gas cans. Of course at that point he is in a different frame of mind and very fragile imo. He's given various versions of events of that day. Clearly he has been corrected about many instances by CA.

ETA: Remember Casey and Caylee had been mia for 30 days at that point.

 

[DiDi]

Do I think KC is innocent? Absolutely not. But, I also don't think it was premeditated. My pet theory as many have posted is that Caylee drowned in the pool due to KC's negligence of some sort. Going inside leaving her in the pool, could even have been laying right there sunbathing listening to an ipod. Whatever, negligence on her part. When she found Caylee the flurry of calls began. No responses and then realized it was too late anyway, no way could/would she let it be known she was responsible for this. The coverup begins. Borrowing the shovel to bury her, that didn't work. Kidnapping plan in action. I think the duct tape was applied to support a kidnapping.

At one point I thought she may have been knocking Caylee out and leaving her to sleep in the car so she could hook up with men that may have been giving her money. But I just always go back to the drowing. It just seems to fit for me.

How could she appear so calm in the movie rental store and not appear flustered to people during all that time? I think her sociopathic personality allows her to not feel. And I don't doubt at all that at some point she actually may have had a sense of freedom. Or who knows, if not that, maybe she was taking large amounts of Xanax. My personal belief though, she can tell herself a lie and fully believe it putting her into that world.

Why would she sit in jail for an accident. I think it's clear that once KC throws her lies out there she does not take them back. She will ride that lie until she can no longer. Point in case, insisting on working at Universal and taking it as far as she did. Or the pregnancy, same thing.

Now I am not opposed to entertaining the premeditated theory at all. I truely like to look at all sides of the coin fairly. The one big reason I can't discount premediation yet is because of the diary entries. Those are a big hang up for me. However, if it was premeditated. I don't believe it was revenge against CA, or anything like that. I think it would have been purely because she wanted to be with AL and Caylee was hindering that.

The chloroform searches, I can accept that she may have searched due to the facebook entry. The neck breaking, etc. If I remember correctly and I could be wrong, but, I thought there was a thread long back where a poster did lots of looking into that and determined that those were "ad" type things on the sides of the web pages that where clicked on/ links followed and not actual searches.

Maybe information from trial will either solidify things for me, or push me fully into premeditation. I don't know. I'm looking forward to hearing it all though. One think that I'm quite sure will not change for me, is that I feel whole heartedly that she is responsible for Caylee's death. And if even if it was an accident, due to her actions in the days that followed, she should get LWOP. If it was premeditated, she deserves the death penalty. JMHO.

 

[Baxter]

I am not a moderator in this forum, but I'm going to post something that I have posted other places before and will probably post again.

It is very uncommon here at Websleuths that we restrict debate on a particular thread - generally confined to threads where people the admins have vetted as experts give opinions to inform others. Anyone here is free to start a thread on anything they want to discuss as long as they follow the TOS. People can ask that the debate be limited, but the moderators will not enforce that restriction.

Any sort of attack against the thread starter for holding an unpopular opinion is a TOS violation, however, so keep that in mind.

Now.

Argumentum ad populum is fallacious. There is no difference in the requirement to make your case whether you are the only person that holds a certain position or the entire population save one person holds that position. And it can be difficult to make an argument that goes against popular opinion, so I commend anyone who wishes to go down that road. To restate the TOS for this case:

--The fact that someone presents a position that the majority does not hold does not make them stupid, ignorant, illogical or wrong. Look to the argument made and discuss that, not the motivation of the proponent.

--The fact that someone agrees with a position held by the majority does not make them stupid, ignorant, illogical or wrong. Look to the argument made and discuss that, not the motivation of the proponent.

I trust this is the only time I'll need to post this screed on this thread. Thank you.

With resect, try posting on any thread the idea other than KC is guilty and the lowest of all lows on earth. One is alone for the most part (which is okay I guess) but not able to express yourself and get any honest feedback - what I mean is, there is no discussion other than to tell you you're wrong.

So why can't there be a thread excluding (not literally) those who have their minds totally made up? Just like an ignore button exists, why not simply ignore this thread? I haven't even gotton through the first page yet and the posts are contrary to what PAX asked for the thread to be. Let the evidence stand on it's own, what's everyone afraid of?

Read 's post.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Those are good questions and if the state brings the up they will certainly help their cause, as for me, being stupid and doing stupid things that the average person doesnt understand doesnt make one a killer, however.

Like I said my gut tells me she was likely involved in the childs death but I just dont think the state can PROVE IT and therefore she is not guilty but not technically innocent.

I got my mother to watch a TV special about the case. Normally she won't as she says it's too sad for her to focus on. When she saw the party images, she jumped to a guilty verdict. I don't blame my mom because we can safely assume that no mother of sound of mind would act the way KC did and her behavior is captured on video.

That said, I know their mother/daughter, CA-KC, background as much as it's possilbe to know/understand it. How much is true I'm not exactly sure.

1. Baby conceived out of wedlock by 19 year old confused, longing for love, troubled young lady. Possibly narcissistic and/or sociopathic (but not evil natured).

2. It's been suggested KC would have been willing to put baby up for adoption. Enter controlling mother/grandmother. CA won't entertain the idea of adoption. CA closed her eyes to the growing belly of KC thus providing learning for ignoring the obvious; pretending what was there was not there. Walking down the long hallway until there is nowhere else to turn.

3. Conflict of CA telling KC that they will raise Caylee together but then CA not being happy or letting KC do it the way she wanted to. When KC and CA were together CA ran the show. Yet CA let KC keep Caylee overnight where men lived, having a blind eye to that fact because she was tired (understandable) and deep down liked the empty house. A combination concoction of tension, confused roles and immature choices allowed to play out.

 

[panthera]

Finished reading page 1 - it's going to take awhile to get through this thread.

While I do, someone explain these factors ~

A text from CA to KC saying that they have a huge problem due to the Pontiac being towed. (indicating a united front)

A question from CA to KC asking 'why didn't she pick up the car?' (suggesting a plan gone wrong)

GA being so specific regarding what KC and Caylee were wearing on June 9 - oops, I mean June 16, 2008. This he claimed on July 16. I find GA's memory hard to fathom, in that, there was no way for him to know that would be the last day he'd ever see Caylee again.

As to the "huge problem" I've always thought this meant financial (having to pay to get the car out of impound) and the odor emanating from it, rather than a "united front" at this point; as well as the question from CA regarding her not picking up the car (from Amscot) which would seem reasonable given the car was ultimately towed.

Now as to GA remembering specifically what Caylee was wearing on June 16, I've always believed he was mistaken, as well as possibly trying to be overly helpful, again though with the wrong date instead of purposefully lying. Someone normally wouldn't remember exactly what someone else was wearing a month later if the day was "just an ordinary day" with no special significance.

MOO

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Sort of both I guess, those who think she is not guilty but that doesnt mean innocent and those who think she is flat out innocent.

What I would really like to hear is some alternative ideas as to how the child was killed, coming from those who dont think she did it because like most of you I am at loss to explain how this child died and have a gut feeling she was involved but I dont think the state can prove it.

Words that come to mind ~

STAIRS -- POOL -- BEACH -- CAR

By the way, where is the second car seat that belonged in CA's car? Did LE ever insist on seeing it (CA said it was up in the attic)? Or was there only one car seat left by the time LE inquired on the subject? Was one car seat gone after CA cleaned the Pontiac having been exchanged with the other one?
Have two car seats been accounted for? I really want to know this.

 

[elfie]

I've only heard and seen the jail call from Casey after her first booking as it has been shown on TV, and am guessing it was edited and the conversation spliced together, but would like to have that verified.

After Kristina's plea that if anything happened to Caylee she would have been very upset (paraphrasing) Casey's comment was "Oh, wow, calling you guys-- a waste, a huge waste". (I actually thought that response from Casey was "oh well...etc." which, if even possible, would have been worse in that situation.) I just can't see anyone making that comment to a friend, but rather their parents or family.

I believe that many of the conversations and statements covered by the media have been edited for maximum impact, and this was well before JB argued against a gag order. Why he didn't go before the court with a motion for a gag order when he first took the case or even within the first month is a mystery to me. Sadly it points to a desire to gain from notoriety.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

As to the "huge problem" I've always thought this meant financial (having to pay to get the car out of impound) and the odor emanating from it, rather than a "united front" at this point; as well as the question from CA regarding her not picking up the car (from Amscot)) which would seem reasonable given the car was ultimately towed.

MOO

snipped for now and BBM ~

CA was not asking KC why 'she' meaning KC didn't pick up the car.
She messaged KC asking why 'she' meaning someone else hadn't picked the Pontiac up from the lot.
If CA had meant KC, she would have asked 'why didn't YOU pick up the car'.

 

[juskiss]

Hi everyone, I'm new here.

I think Casey is absolutely guilty. There are times when I can almost say that maybe it was an accident, but duct tape over both the mouth and the nose is hardly what I would call an "oops".

I have a little girl just a bit older than Caylee and just thinking about some of the horrors that little Caylee went through just chills me to the bone. I thought about her a lot when my daughter started kindergarten last fall, as Caylee should have been starting kindergarten as well.

I can't wait to hear how the defense is going to spin all of this.

 

[Spangle]

I think the duct tape is actually a very good point of discussion.


Most of you seem to be saying this:

Because the same brand of duct tape that was wrapped around the childs mouth was found in the Anthony home Casey must have wrapped the duct tape around the child's mouth.

But that isnt what the duct tape says ACCORDING TO THE LAW. According to the law, as a fair and impartial juror, this is what the duct tape says:

Caylee had duct tape wrapped around her mouth, that same brand of duct tape was also found in the Anthony home. THAT is ALL the duct tape says, for you to take the giant LEAP and says because it was found in the Anthony home Casey MUST have used to to wrap her daughters mouth. Those are the kind of leaps bad jurors make and the very kind of leaps that get innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit. Any number of people could be using that same duct tape within the Anthony home, there is NO EVIDENCE that PROVES it was Casey who used it as such, to say there is, is a leap, a guess, a gut feeling, all of which do not belong in the jury deliberation room.

It absolutely should not be excluded, its crime scene evidence, I am just saying its a LEAP to say Casey just have used that duct tape simply because the same duct tape was found in the Anthony home. I cant take that leap if I am a fair and impartial juror following the judges instructions and basing my verdict ONLY ON THE FACTS, it is not a fact that Casey used that duct tape that is only a guess.

To understand me you need to understand I have seen way too many innocent people, truly innocent people, spend years locked up away from their loved ones and children for crimes they did not commit because of jurors making giant leaps based on gut feelings, I hate it and I work tirelessly to put an end to it.

You didn't included the information about how rare that tape is. It isn't any ole tape that everyone has. And THAT is what makes it a tie in to the Anthony family home. Which could point to any of them being connected. But only ICA does all the evidence fit.

I also am tired of innocent folks going to jail. But I don't think it's from Jury making giant leaps of faith. But ole fashion railroad. Planting evidence, spoiling evidence, twisting and/or not looking at the clues. With this open court, we can see all the evidence. We can do research ourselves.

I set through a trial where an undercover LE testified that the accused said there name was ACD. The Sheriff took the stand to say that the accused had never used that name, never known by that name, and knew accused all their life. What was not allowed in court was the UC had been mistaken before. That there was a local person with a name of ACD who drove a car just like what the accuse drove during that time. But the Accused car was tag in AD name, and the defendant's name was CD. UC claimed she got ACD cause that was what the defendant introduced himself as.

THAT was the witness that sent the accused to jail. The only witness to an event that happened a couple of years before she made the accusation.

Sorry, I don't see ANYTHING like that going on here. I don't see anything that can be used for ICA DT being kept from the court. Infact, the DT hasn't brought up anything at all. I've attended these innocent threads just to try and find such info.

 

[texaslb218]

This isnt directed at me, but might I state my opinion? One of the worst things to happen to OJ was the pariah thing. The people who would walk out the door of resturants, the people who would walk out of the audience at Larry King.

In ICA's case, she is still facing her lawsuit regarding Zanny, am I correct in this? If GA comes up in the trial as a blind, she is still facing deposition regarding any potential suit against JB. She has a long way to go before her freedom is assured, imo.

Yes, I think she would be a pariah.

It's hardly comparable in notoriety, but I thought Mary Winkler would be shunned or considered a pariah, but she wasn't and isn't. IMO, IMO, OT...I love that O.J. was treated that way in restaurants and other public places.

 

[allycat1208]

I am not totally convinced that KC is guilty of murder in the first degree yet, since there is no motive for me, other than wanting to party without the inconvenience of a child. Also, I think the fact that she had Caylee made it easier for her to keep taking money from her mother. Her mother may have condoned her behavior because of the needs for Caylee. I heard that KC's boyfriend, Tony said he did not want girls if he ever had children, but he did accept Caylee on the getgo of the relationship. I read many comments about KC having the elements of a narcissistic personality, but this alone does not help me to believe she would kill intentionally. I do believe she is guilty of at least manslaughter because of all the evidence. I don't see how somehow someone else, would have gotten a hold of her car and put Caylee in it, other than her parents and I don't believe either of them are guilty. If this was an accident with a cover-up though, I just cannot conceive of her behavior afterwards. Maybe her behavior afterwards shows she is so narcissistic that she could easily get on without Caylee. I basically am stuck in the middle...I keep vacillating between murder and manslaughter.

 

[juskiss]

as for the duct tape, I think the sticker that was found on the duct tape matching/nearly matching stickers found in the anthony's home is far more damning. Maybe not enough to prove anything, but it does look pretty bad.

Edited because "nearly matching" sounds bad. When I said that, I meant a sticker that most likely came from the same sheet of stickers.

They showed the stickers briefly on NG the other night, but I can't find that same image again to compare.

 

[gamom]

No and frankly I don't even understand why you're asking me such an outrageous question since I didn't say it was a "simple accident". I was simply commenting that child neglect resulting in death doesn't always equal 1st degree charges.

I agree. It doesn't always equal 1st degree charges but it CAN. I don't know about you, but I have NEVER seen a case quite like this one. If there was ever a time where it should equal first degree charges this would be that time. My opinion only.

 

[Leila]

Even with all we know, I believe the state knows more. I think there will be a few 'bombshells' dropped in that courtroom that we haven't even thought of yet.

I trust that the state brought forth the charge of First Degree Murder because they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that is what happened.

It would be so much easier for the prosecution to just pursue Life Without Parole, but the fact that they are pushing for the Death Penalty, makes me certain their evidence is solid and convincing.

ITA! In every case I've followed, I thought I knew all the details of the case, but when it came to trial, I was surprised by what the prosecution brought forth.

Even though we think we know all there is to know through the documents that have been released through the Sunshine Law, I think we're all going to be surprised by what the state will present.