Is Casey Anthony Possibly Innocent?

[Soulmagent]

I followed the case alot in 2008 and just after Caylee was found. I am current on the whole but do not know some key information I dont feel opinion is weighted enough to decided if I think it is first degree based on that.

At the start I thought it was an accident. I still kinda think whatever happened was not a premeditated murder attempt but her actions do imply guilt. I cannot set aside public opinion to make a fair verdict.
If the defence can pull off a believable accident verse cover up that is backed up with something concrete. They maybe able to get the reasonable doubt they are seeking.

To a jury who is not aware of the amount of information that there is on this case.

I am worried by the jury pool we have so far and I am thinking she may not be found guilty of first degree.

 

[PAXIMUS]

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.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Based on the facts so far I would have to vote 'not guilty' which is much different than innocent.

However I think she did it one way or the other.

Thats a very good point, not guilty does not mean innocent it only means the state didnt prove guilt. Im with you.

 

[katydid23]

Paximus,

Humor me then, and paint me a scenario where this purely circumstantial evidence points to a different conclusion. Please explain why she made up the nanny story and tried to prevent anyone from looking for her missing child. And why she partied and had a great time while 'somebody else' kidnapped and killed her baby. Or why, if it was an accident, she was not sad or upset by the tragedy, and she chose to sit in jail for 3 years and face Capital Murder charges rather then just tell the truth.

 

[PAXIMUS]

If some other perp did it, why has she been blaming it on the phantom and fictional nanny all of these years? If she was afraid of someone she could have them investigated and then arrested, if they are the true killer. WHY does she sit and lie about it?

AND, if somebody else killed her child, why didn't she report the child missing? And why wasn't she mourning the child?

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.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Paximus,

Humor me then, and paint me a scenario where this purely circumstantial evidence points to a different conclusion. Please explain why she made up the nanny story and tried to prevent anyone from looking for her missing child. And why she partied and had a great time while 'somebody else' kidnapped and killed her baby. Or why, if it was an accident, she was not sad or upset by the tragedy, and she chose to sit in jail for 3 years and face Capital Murder charges rather then just tell the truth.

Well see thats the thing, you cant prove a negative, the defense doesnt have o come up with a different conclusion, this isnt the perry mason show, they dont have to explain anything the state has to prove her guilt and I am saying I am not sure they can.

As to your question I couldnt even begin to explain half the stupid crap Casey did, its beyond measure some of the dumbest things I have ever seen a person do all things considered but that doesnt prove she is a killer.

 

[Pondering Mind]

This is where I stand also, right now she is innocent and can the state prove she is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? I dont think they can and I have all the evidence that one is able to see without being part of the case itself.

bbm
as do the majority of us....unless of course you are privy to some info unseen to the rest of us who have followed this case from the beginning.....

 

[katydid23]

I think the duct trape 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 cries 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.

Right, which is why you look at ALL of the various pieces in the jig-saw:
The duct tape, the smell in the trunk, being the last person to see the child, by her own admission, lying to prevent cops from looking, being happy after child disappears, YOU PIECE IT ALL TOGETHER, and then it is not a great leap, but a footpath to the truth. imoo

 

[Soulmagent]

Thats a very good point, not guilty does not mean innocent it only means the state didnt prove guilt. Im with you.

So in your OP are you saying this thread is for people who think she is innocent or is it more an attempt at a thread for people who dont think she has been proved guilty?
Just to clear that up for me.

Legally innocent and not guilty is the same and not so much in real life.

 

[PAXIMUS]

It's not that simple though. Casey may not be guilty of first degree murder, but the jury may predispose themselves to that charge not based off her personality, but the fact that Casey very likely knows exactly what happened to Caylee. And it's difficult for a sane person to believe that someone who is guilty of a lesser charge would not come clean to avoid the death penalty.

I cant argue with you there, well said.

 

[Uicipher]

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 cries 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.

If you're saying that you want the duct tape evidence excluded I have to disagree. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Juries misinterpreting circumstantial evidence is no different than a Jury that is presented bad physical evidence or bad jury instructions. As for the rest, I agree, there should not be an automatic presumption that because I skull found with duct tape on it, that the duct tape was automatically the cause of death and that the defendant placed the duct tape on the victim.

 

[PAXIMUS]

So in your OP are you saying this thread is for people who think she is innocent or is it more an attempt at a thread for people who dont think she has been proved guilty?
Just to clear that up for me.

Legally innocent and not guilty is the same and not so much in real life.

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.

 

[magiemay]

Right, which is why you look at ALL of the various pieces in the jig-saw:
The duct tape, the smell in the trunk, being the last person to see the child, by her own admission, lying to prevent cops from looking, being happy after child disappears, YOU PIECE IT ALL TOGETHER, and then it is not a great leap, but a footpath to the truth. imoo

You are so so right, As for circumstantial evidence the only way to have anything stronger than that is to have an eyewitness or a confession. I think the case against KC is much much stronger than that of Scott Peterson or Chris Coleman and we know how that played out. Both were found guilty. one on death row and the other with 3 life sentences of lwop.

 

[PAXIMUS]

If you're saying that you want the duct tape evidence excluded I have to disagree. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. Juries misinterpreting circumstantial evidence is no different than a Jury that is presented bad physical evidence or bad jury instructions. As for the rest, I agree, there should not be an automatic presumption that because I skull found with duct tape on it, that the duct tape was automatically the cause of death and that the defendant placed the duct tape on the victim.

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.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Believe me, they will bring them up. And these things are not just 'stupid'--they are manipulative and purposeful. And in that respect they do indicate guilt.

If a cop asks you if your child is missing, and your initial response is " NO, she is fine, I spoke to her yesterday when her nanny called me..." And you are lying because she has been gone for 31 days, ...That is not just 'stupid' behavior. That is calculated, manipulative, stupid behavior. imoo

And there is no explanation for it. You keep saying over and over that it does not mean she is a killer, but it does add to the evidence pointing to her guilt.

There is no reason to lie about that unless you do not want to find your child.

 

[PAXIMUS]

You are so so right, As for circumstantial evidence the only way to have anything stronger than that is to have an eyewitness or a confession. I think the case against KC is much much stronger than that of Scott Peterson or Chris Coleman and we know how that played out. Both were found guilty. one on death row and the other with 3 life sentences of lwop.

I hpe the truth comes out someday the real truth for Caylee's sake, ill say that much. But it likely never will, those involved have too much to lose.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Believe me, they will bring them up. And these things are not just 'stupid'--they are manipulative and purposeful. And in that respect they do indicate guilt.

If a cop asks you if your child is missing, and your initial response is " NO, she is fine, I spoke to her yesterday when her nanny called me..." And you are lying because she has been gone for 31 days, ...That is not just 'stupid' behavior. That is calculated, manipulative, stupid behavior. imoo

And there is no explanation for it. You keep saying over and over that it does not mean she is a killer, but it does add to the evidence pointing to her guilt.

There is no reason to lie about that unless you do not want to find your child.

I think the evidence says alot about Casey Anthony I just dont think it says she murdered the child in cold blood...yet.



I have to get a little shut eye but I will return to this thread in a few hours as I really appreciate the discussion, you guys and gals are good and make me think and give me a run for my money.

 

[Uicipher]

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.

I think we're on the same page I just wanted you to clarify. Thanks.

I have similar reasons for being a skeptical juror. There are too many cases that seem open and shut at first glance. I the number of people freed from death row is about 140 post-Furman.

 

[magiemay]

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.

I commend you on your work and I don't think any one wants someone put away for a crime that they did not commit. How ever we don't want people who are guilty walking free to do this again either. I am sure yours is a very tough job. And I respect it very much.But as I said before Kc would do better with you representing her than I feel she is going to do with her present representation. And with that said I do not feel that there will be a hung jury nor do I think she will be set free. I think there are so many things against her even you might not be able to save her life.

 

[iluvmua]

It depends on how she died, I've considered the possibility the duct tape may have been part of the body disposal not the actual homicide.

The've already said it was placed on Caylee before she died.