4 years later, what do we think of the case / verdict now?

Why does TMZ think anyone cares?


and Fl is not in "The Thirty Mile Zone" But I did read the article , she found a guy to actually live with her? Is he sane?:moo:
 
Hi All,

I am wondering if any of you have read the book "Inside the Mind of Casey Anthony" by Keith Ablow, and if so, what you thought of it?
I read it and did find it interesting but I couldn't get over the fact that the author blamed Cindy Anthony for not only Caylee's death, but also the dysfunctionality of the entire family.

I read it and it actually made sense to me.I have always felt that Caylee's death was Casey sending a big *advertiser censored** U to Cindy.How dare Cindy love Caylee more than Casey.I think that was part of Casey's mentality.
 
All I would have needed to do is hear Cindy's voice on that 911 tape to know she had NOTHING to do with it or a cover up of it. She may have been an enabler but I honestly don't believe for a second she thought her daughter was capable of cold blooded murder. I think it shocked her as much as it shocked the nation. Party girl, lazy, boy crazy...yeah but murderer? Nope.

Cindy's testimony in court was trying to save her daughter from death penalty. I can't fault her for that. I really can't. I don't think she testified to save her kid from manslaughter...it was the DP driving that train.

George is just George. He came to the conclusion that Casey was capable sooner than Cindy thats for sure. And he was an easy target.

There were a million reasons to hang Casey from the tallest tree. The jury simply did not do the work.
 
and Fl is not in "The Thirty Mile Zone" But I did read the article , she found a guy to actually live with her? Is he sane?:moo:
Sane or not, I hope he's sterile. :silenced:
 
All I would have needed to do is hear Cindy's voice on that 911 tape to know she had NOTHING to do with it or a cover up of it. She may have been an enabler but I honestly don't believe for a second she thought her daughter was capable of cold blooded murder. I think it shocked her as much as it shocked the nation. Party girl, lazy, boy crazy...yeah but murderer? Nope.

Cindy's testimony in court was trying to save her daughter from death penalty. I can't fault her for that. I really can't. I don't think she testified to save her kid from manslaughter...it was the DP driving that train.

George is just George. He came to the conclusion that Casey was capable sooner than Cindy thats for sure. And he was an easy target.

There were a million reasons to hang Casey from the tallest tree. The jury simply did not do the work.

In this case I think the jury did the right work. They did their job. There was just enough to convict her on MURDER. And that is where the prosecution screwed up..
 
In this case I think the jury did the right work. They did their job. There was just enough to convict her on MURDER. And that is where the prosecution screwed up..

I disagree. There was an exceptionally large amount of information that showed me she had means, opportunity and motive. There was NOTHING to support her defense laid out in the opening statement.
 
The only way she is going to talk ( and don't expect the truth) will be if someone offers $$$. It's almost 5 years now and media don't seem interested enough to (a) risk the wrath of the general public by giving her a voice and (b) willing to pay her for what would certainly be another version of similar lies...

I think Casey wants more money than the media is offering. I doubt they are worried about the wrath of the public---think about all the outrage, protests, and riots after Darren Wilson was not indicted, yet nothing happened to ABC or any of the sponsors when they did an interview with him. They would love it if the interview caused controversy.
 
and Fl is not in "The Thirty Mile Zone" But I did read the article , she found a guy to actually live with her? Is he sane?:moo:

Lets hope he locks up all his valuables or he may find they disappear while he is "sleepwalking".....
 
Lets hope he locks up all his valuables or he may find they disappear while he is "sleepwalking".....

If I were him, I'd be sleeping with one eye open. She's killed once, she'll do it again.
 
In this case I think the jury did the right work. They did their job. There was just enough to convict her on MURDER. And that is where the prosecution screwed up..

I agree that there was enough to convict her of murder. How does that indicate the prosecution screwed up?
 
That's what he did, huh? I doubt I'll ever read it then.

I really don't understand why people are willing to make excuses for Casey when it's obvious that she is at fault for whatever happened to Caylee, she disposed of Caylee's body and then went to extreme and manipulative lengths to cover up.

Casey is, and was, a grown woman. If she didn't like where she was living, all she had to do was get a real job and move out instead of lying and robbing everyone around her blind.

BBM ~ Well, it's not obvious to me. The evidence I saw was all circumstantial and George behaved as if he was hiding something.
 
Who cares if fca had a dead body in her trunk, who cares that an army of trained, and untrained, witnesses testified to smelling death in her trunk (including cadaver dogs), who cares that it was fca who ditched her smelly car after becoming overwhelmed by it and after blaming dead squirrels for the horrific odor, who cares that she borrowed a shovel to remove bamboo that Caylee could trip on after she was already dead, who cares that Caylee was thrown in the swamp, who cares that fca was elated to be dancing in a hot body contest FOUR whole days after her baby "drowned", who cares that she was skipping through blockbuster on a date with her new beau only HOURS after her baby "drowned", who cares that she originally says la molested her and she wasn't sure about her dad, but at trial she switches it around and recalls very specific details of horrific abuse by her dad, who cares that fca's activity on June 16th doesn't support their accidental drowning theory, who cares that the jailhouse videos/calls go against everything in their opening statements, who cares that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence", and should be treated as such in a criminal trial, etc, etc, etc, etc.... But, george seemed suspicious on the stand and everything's "just" circumstantial, so she deserves to be set free!!!! .... I guess some just know better than the Supreme Court...


All jmo.
 
Funny how it's always TMZ that publishes these little "accidental" glimpses of the felon. No doubt she got paid for this one too.

I wonder if any of her neighbors have invited her over for cocktails? Or to have her babysit?
 
BBM ~ Well, it's not obvious to me. The evidence I saw was all circumstantial and George behaved as if he was hiding something.


And Casey didn't?

The jury was instructed to give circumstantial evidence the same weight as direct evidence. In bare bones cases where the mother has misled and stalled the police (insisting her daughter was alive and trying to get them to search for a fictional nanny in New York and Puerto Rico) to the point that her daughter is finally discovered skeletonized, there isn't a lot of forensic evidence.

If the jury had given the circumstantial evidence any consideration, they would have realized that Casey's story was both impossible and it made no sense. Instead, the jury decided George's behavior (on the stand, not even during the 31 days) mattered and Casey's did not.

And what else implicates George? The tape on the gas can that Casey was toting around in her trunk? The same tape that came from the shed that Tony testified that he helped Casey break into during the 31 days? The fact that he didn't immediately see the tow notice and go collect the car that according to Baez, did not have a dead body in it?

Baez went to such lengths to paint all the expert testimony about the trunk as junk science. So why would he harp on the George not immediately grabbing the tow notice or immediately calling the police about the smell after opening the trunk and finding nothing there? Why try to convince the jury that it was just trash?

What's suspicious about George not immediately going to the tow yard to retrieve a car that had nothing to do with Caylee's death? What about Baez's reasoning makes sense?

This is where it gets really interesting:

A) if you decide George not immediately getting the car is suspicious, it means you concede that Caylee's body was in Casey's trunk at one point and Casey was fully aware of that fact because she abandoned her car and was texting people with excuses about the smell in it.

Then we run into another problem. If George knew Caylee's body was in the trunk, why wouldn't he have picked it up sooner to get rid of the evidence? Or if you want to claim this is another attempt to frame Casey for what she actually did (which was drive around with her daughter's body in the trunk of her car) why would he have picked it up at all? Why wouldn't he have just tossed the tow notice all together instead of showing it to Cindy?

A juror claimed that it's suspicious that George opened the trunk in front of the tow employee. Would it have been less suspicious for him to have smelled decomposition and not looked in the trunk immediately? Baez claimed it's suspicious that he even drove it home all, but the jury should have taken into consideration that Casey was also driving around in it despite the smell and Casey did not call the police.

If George had called the police over what he thought he smelled, I get the feeling said juror would revert back to finding it suspicious that he was so willing to "throw Casey under the bus" the same way he did when he addressed George reporting the f'ing gas cans missing after he discovered his shed had been broken into and George's initial cooperation with the police.

Is it more suspicious to drive a decomp smelling car home with all the windows rolled down or to drive around in a decomp smelling car, park it by a dumpster, text your friend about it blaming it on dead animals and leave it there until it gets towed?

The foreman made a halfhearted attempt to put George behind the wheel by vaguely alluding to an extra set of keys, but there is zero evidence of that. George wasn't seen driving Casey's car, he didn't pick her up at Amscot, there is no evidence that he saw her at all during the thirty one days other than that one day when he surprised her while she was sneaking around the house and he confronted her about the gas cans.

B) If you decide that there was no body in the trunk, there is nothing suspicious about George claiming that he did not see the tow notice and there is nothing suspicious about George not calling the police after smelling the trunk. He was simply mistaken and snookered by one stinky bag of trash. (That Casey failed to remove from her trunk even though she parked next to a dumpster and then texted Amy about the smell.)

You can try to claim it's suspicious and another attempt to throw Casey under the bus that George claimed he was smelling death where there was none, but then you run into another problem. At least five other people, Casey Anthony herself and two cadaver dogs made the same mistake. So the only conclusion you can come to is that that was one stinky, stinky bag of trash and George's actions are not all that suspicious.

Maybe back at the tow yard, George thought or was praying that it was the trash too. Then Cindy got into contact with Casey and realized Casey had been lying and his granddaughter had been missing for the last 31 days. Maybe he needed that to put two and two together.

Maybe George did the right thing when he initially cooperated with the police. Maybe his intention was not throwing Casey under the bus. Maybe he was telling the truth because he wanted to find his granddaughter and know what happened to her and he sure as heck wasn't getting the truth from her mother. I thought that was the strangest part of the jury's logic and the "George was involved" logic. George cooperating with the police when there is a missing child is suspicious, but Casey not cooperating with the police is not?

Casey's story had holes in it bigger than the grand canyon starting with how Caylee's body got into the woods.

If only the people who bend over backwards to give Casey the benefit of a doubt would do the same for George. There is absolutely nothing that implicates him other than Casey changing her story yet again.
 
BBM ~ Well, it's not obvious to me. The evidence I saw was all circumstantial and George behaved as if he was hiding something.
You are confusing direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence generally consists of a direct eyewitness to the crime or a confession from the perpetrator. Circumstantial evidence is all other evidence, including forensic evidence associated with the crime. Most cases are successfully prosecuted on circumstantial evidence alone. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly to Casey and no one else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
 
And Casey didn't?

The jury was instructed to give circumstantial evidence the same weight as direct evidence. In bare bones cases where the mother has misled and stalled the police (insisting her daughter was alive and trying to get them to search for a fictional nanny in New York and Puerto Rico) to the point that her daughter is finally discovered skeletonized, there isn't a lot of forensic evidence.

If the jury had given the circumstantial evidence any consideration, they would have realized that Casey's story was both impossible and it made no sense. Instead, the jury decided George's behavior (on the stand, not even during the 31 days) mattered and Casey's did not.

***snipped by me***

Baez went to such lengths to paint all the expert testimony about the trunk as junk science. So why would he harp on the George not immediately grabbing the tow notice or immediately calling the police about the smell after opening the trunk and finding nothing there? Why try to convince them that it was just trash?

What's suspicious about George not immediately going to the tow yard to retrieve a car that had nothing to do with Caylee's death? What about Baez's reasoning makes sense?

This is where it gets really interesting:

A) if you decide George not immediately getting the car is suspicious, it means you concede that Caylee's body was in Casey's trunk at one point and Casey was fully aware of that fact because she abandoned her car and was texting people with excuses about the smell in it.

***snipped by me***

Casey's story had holes in it bigger than the grand canyon starting with how Caylee's body got into the woods.

If only the people who bend over backwards to give Casey the benefit of a doubt would do the same for George. There is absolutely nothing that implicates him other than Casey changing her story yet again.

:goodpost::loveyou:

Respectfully snipped, but ALL excellent points jkly...

The jurors just didn't want to do the work, they wanted the prosecution to remove all doubt for them. Without direct evidence pointing right at fca they refused to even look at the circumstantial stuff... When asked why deliberations were so short considering all that evidence, Jennifer Ford admitted that they didn't even look at the evidence because they wanted more, they wanted physical evidence (direct) and cod (not required), they wanted the prosecution to connect the dots for them (pretty sure she said that wasn't their job!), etc. She said if you don't even know how she died how can you say it's murder??? Uhm...you discuss the evidence, you roll up your sleeves, you use your brain, and put 2 & 2 together and see where the evidence takes you... Even today, I still get frustrated with how they reached their verdict, because they didn't have the right to disregard the evidence just because it was circumstantial and they didn't like it.... It wasn't their job to determine what kind of evidence is acceptable to them, the court instructed them on what CE was and how they were to apply it... Would a video of fca killing Caylee have been easier? Yes, of course... CE takes more time, it requires discussions, pouring over the evidence, making inferences, putting it all together, etc, but that's what the jury is expected to do... Deliberate...Like you said in your post, they were supposed to give it the same weight as direct evidence...This jury didn't do that, they did it their way.....

I don't understand how the jury could've so easily given the defense a pass on not explaining how Caylee's body ended up in the woods...In opening jbaez kind of danced around it, he told them them george told fca he'd "take care of it", and that was about it. He didn't provide any evidence during the trial (of anything), he just left the jury hanging with that large elephant in the room... Of course, if one were to connect the dots, you might realize that they had no explanation for it because no one else but fca did it. The circumstances tell us that...

Typically when attys don't deliver on what they say in opening statements jurors hold it against them... If holes are left wide open, they usually want to know why, and will fill it in themselves.... which doesn't always bode well for the defendant... Typically, jurors do their job.... IMO

eta... Here's another good definition of direct evidence, from www.probablecause.org:

Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio and videotapes, and physical evidence of the crime. With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.

All jmo.
 
If I were him, I'd be sleeping with one eye open. She's killed once, she'll do it again.

I agree with you entirely I'd rather have my limbs amputated than go near her. What on earth is he thinking?

It makes me sick to see pics of her smiling and appearing carefree. Shame on TMZ for publishing the photos this individual is not a celebrity and she should be forgotten and Caylee remembered. I just went on the site to see any news and seeing her photo made me feel ill. I hope to God she is never pregnant again.
 
:goodpost::loveyou:

Respectfully snipped, but ALL excellent points jkly...

The jurors just didn't want to do the work, they wanted the prosecution to remove all doubt for them. Without direct evidence pointing right at fca they refused to even look at the circumstantial stuff... When asked why deliberations were so short considering all that evidence, Jennifer Ford admitted that they didn't even look at the evidence because they wanted more, they wanted physical evidence (direct) and cod (not required), they wanted the prosecution to connect the dots for them (pretty sure she said that wasn't their job!), etc. She said if you don't even know how she died how can you say it's murder??? Uhm...you discuss the evidence, you roll up your sleeves, you use your brain, and put 2 & 2 together and see where the evidence takes you... Even today, I still get frustrated with how they reached their verdict, because they didn't have the right to disregard the evidence just because it was circumstantial and they didn't like it.... It wasn't their job to determine what kind of evidence is acceptable to them, the court instructed them on what CE was and how they were to apply it... Would a video of fca killing Caylee have been easier? Yes, of course... CE takes more time, it requires discussions, pouring over the evidence, making inferences, putting it all together, etc, but that's what the jury is expected to do... Deliberate...Like you said in your post, they were supposed to give it the same weight as direct evidence...This jury didn't do that, they did it their way.....

I don't understand how the jury could've so easily given the defense a pass on not explaining how Caylee's body ended up in the woods...In opening jbaez kind of danced around it, he told them them george told fca he'd "take care of it", and that was about it. He didn't provide any evidence during the trial (of anything), he just left the jury hanging with that large elephant in the room... Of course, if one were to connect the dots, you might realize that they had no explanation for it because no one else but fca did it. The circumstances tell us that...

Typically when attys don't deliver on what they say in opening statements jurors hold it against them... If holes are left wide open, they usually want to know why, and will fill it in themselves.... which doesn't always bode well for the defendant... Typically, jurors do their job.... IMO

eta... Here's another good definition of direct evidence, from www.probablecause.org:

Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio and videotapes, and physical evidence of the crime. With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.

All jmo.

BBM

I think these jurors, or at least enough of them to sway the rest, saw sitting on this jury as a chance at a huge payday. This was probably the most publicized case since OJ, with nightly news shows dedicated to this and almost exclusively this case. I believe they felt they were going to get some big paychecks when they gave their interviews, and wrote their books. They never once thought about delivering justice for a murdered toddler. They were too busy spending the blood money they thought they would make afterwards. I hope they are all ostracized and haunted for the rest of their lives. MOO
 
That is what was going through my head during the entire trial ... "this jury will never believe the garbage the defense is spewing". Anyone with a lick of common sense would have laughed at that circus. When I heard the jury praise the defense team, and basically repeat every ridiculous thing they said, I was stunned. That jury was a lethal combination of a few dominant personalities who insisted on getting their way, and the rest were just spineless, lazy, and/or naive. There was not 1 person on that jury who had the self confidence and assertiveness to stand up to the "leaders". There were also no educated, young mothers on that jury who would understand, without a doubt, that no mother would EVER behave the way she did if she were innocent. Didn't one of the younger (childless) men say that her partying was no big deal because of her age? He left out the part where she was partying during the time her child was DEAD!

Edited to add: This was in response to post #271 by heidisams regarding the jury.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
1,971
Total visitors
2,146

Forum statistics

Threads
589,982
Messages
17,928,629
Members
228,029
Latest member
Truthseeker158
Back
Top