For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.
- Thread starter mrsu
- Start date
New Posts
-
IA IA - David Schultz, 53, Wall Lake, 21 November 2023 #3- Latest: ChatteringBirds
-
- Status
TxLady2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 8,099
- Reaction score
- 1,623
Exactly. The jury should not be hounded or blamed for their verdict, nor should they be called nasty names. They did the job the judge instructed them to do.
These people put their lives on hold for 2 months, and had to follow very strict rules. They had to live in a hotel under guard. They could not talk to their family except on weekends, nor use cell phones, computers, or watch t.v. They had to sit in that courtroom and listen to unpleasant and sometimes confusing and boring testimony for hours every day, and look at sickening pictures of the remains of a child. No one here had to go through all that and so they don't have the right to slam these jurors for the decision they made. If only one or a few of them had been holdouts and the rest of them wanted to convict, I could understand the anger at them. But ALL TWELVE of them agreed, and that tells me a lot.
Blame the detectives. Blame the prosecution. But leave these people alone, they do not deserve all this hostility and hatred I see posted all over the web. I guess I will just never understand some people.
The jury was given an either/or proposition. Either you believe she premeditated killing her daughter or she didn't kill her daughter. That's it. No kill her by accident, no trying to cover up an accident, no disposing of the body, nothing.
And then, the state never proved how she died. You are saying she premeditated killing her but yet then never prove how Casey killed her. You never explain how she used the chloroform. You never explain how exactly did she commit this crime. It was speculated ad nauseum on this forum how this went down but none of that was ever presented as proof to the jury.
Look at it like this, you say you have a body in the car. Who put the body there? You say Casey. And you proved that how to the jury? You say she may have buried her in the backyard for a period of time. And you proved that how to the jury? Because she asked for a shovel? You say she dumped her in the swamp. How did you prove she dumped her in the swamp? These are all premeditated questions and they didn't answer any of them.
The jury didn't have any other out than premed. They didn't have 2nd degree. Keep in mind, I don't agree with the verdict, but when you look at the scenarios (just looking at the 1st degree charge, not anything else), you can see how they came up with NG in the 1st degree.
And then, the state never proved how she died. You are saying she premeditated killing her but yet then never prove how Casey killed her. You never explain how she used the chloroform. You never explain how exactly did she commit this crime. It was speculated ad nauseum on this forum how this went down but none of that was ever presented as proof to the jury.
Look at it like this, you say you have a body in the car. Who put the body there? You say Casey. And you proved that how to the jury? You say she may have buried her in the backyard for a period of time. And you proved that how to the jury? Because she asked for a shovel? You say she dumped her in the swamp. How did you prove she dumped her in the swamp? These are all premeditated questions and they didn't answer any of them.
The jury didn't have any other out than premed. They didn't have 2nd degree. Keep in mind, I don't agree with the verdict, but when you look at the scenarios (just looking at the 1st degree charge, not anything else), you can see how they came up with NG in the 1st degree.
raysgirl1126
Hampton Roads, Virginia
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 821
- Reaction score
- 1,970
:rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker: AMEN
There were LIO's, but none of them were argued. This is where the prosecution made their mistake,imo. Many felt they were overreaching from the beginning. The SA overcharged and then did not argue the lesser offenses;basically they asked for all or nothing and got nothing. I don't agree with the verdict in that I think she killed her daughter .But I understand how the jury came to the conclusion they did based on the elements they were given in the jury instructions and what the SA argued and did or did not prove. If the SA had argued anything lesser, I believe and always have believed they would have convicted her.
I totally agree...the prosecution let the ball drop by leaving out a lot of evidence...that fight was pivetal piece that they needed. I'm going to ask this question:
WHERE was and WHO was watching Caylee while Cindy and KC were fighting like cats and dogs and George was the referee?
A lot of people on here that have had experience with sociopaths say that there is always a little bit of truth sprinkled in with the lies, you just have to know how to decipher. The only thing that I can disagree is that according to GA and CA, KC didn't leave the night of June 15th. She spent the night at home and left the next day. GA gave a very vivid description of what Caylee and KC were wearing when they left...something that has always raised a red flag with me.
I'm going to go in another direction for a moment please don't get mad at me..but this family has some series issues dealing with the truth, dealing with things that make them uncomfortable. When confronted with it they just act like it isn't happening, they go into some sort of psychotic denial. She's not pregnant, she's bloated. The baby isn't dead, the nanny, that we've never met or talk to, has her at the beach.
IIRC:
Cindy and Caylee came home from that Father's day visit and went swimming.
Casey came home from who knows where TLs, the mall, feel free to speculate.
She wasn't allowed to swim with them because Cindy said "caylee was tired".
Cindy that said she gave Caylee to Casey.
Cindy FURIOUS at Casey for stealing from her parents leaves the pool ladder up.
Casey bathed Caylee and got her ready for bed.
Then Cindy confronts Casey and all hell brakes loose as you so vividly and elloquently decribed it above.
NOBODY is paying attention to Caylee.
Added because I just thought of this HORRIBLE sceniero:
Casey does LEAVE but leaves Caylee at home...
GA and CA still reeling from their arguement don't realize SHE DIDN'T take Caylee with her..
Caylee isn't found untill the next day when Casey comes home, Cindy is at work and George is watching his cooking show.
Karmaa
CASA Advocate
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 582
- Reaction score
- 2
I think a lot of people on this site do not really understand what our legal/justice system requires.
First of all: even if everyone "knows" Casey did something to Caylee, the state is required to prove "what" was done. They did not do that.
Next: in order to prove murder (particularly 1st degree) there needs to be a mens rea. (not necessarily a motive, but they need to prove that Casey wanted Caylee dead). All they were able to prove is that Casey didn't seem unhappy that Caylee was dead. That is totally not the same thing.
Next: They needed to prove an actus rea. That is, they needed to prove how Caylee died, at least to some degree. Simply showing that she is dead is not enough, unless there is clear and compelling evidence that she was killed. Had her neck been broken, or her skull fractured, that would be enough, but that did not exist in this case. All they could say is that she was probably suffocated, but maybe she was ODed... or maybe something else.
next: they needed physical or circumstantial evidence. Something to prove that Casey was seen in the area that the body was discovered, or that her car tire tracks were at the scene, or that there was Caylee's blood in the trunk... anything. A "death smell" might have contributed to the deal, but it couldn't be considered as primary evidence.
Finally: the entire burden is on the state to prove these things. Casey had no obligation to even present a defense. Obviously, her team did want to throw out some possible alternative scenarios, but that is not their responsibility. It is 100% on the state, and the state overreached.
I think the state was truly counting on the emotions of the jurors pushing this case past the legal requirements. All they could prove, in fact, was that Casey is a liar, that her parents are looneys, and that Caylee is dead. They could not conclusively tie all of those things together to prove that Casey deliberately (or even negligently) killed Caylee.
As much as it saddens me that Casey Anthony seems to have escaped justice, you cannot blame the jury, or even the defense. It is 100% the fault of overeager prosecutors who brought a case to court without the corresponding evidence. And, believe me - I think they did it for the right reasons. I believe that this case impacted them and they were determined to see Casey pay, but they made a big mistake in going for murder 1 - they should have known better. Had they tried her for what they could actually PROVE - she would probably have gotten a minimum of 25-50 years.
First of all: even if everyone "knows" Casey did something to Caylee, the state is required to prove "what" was done. They did not do that.
Next: in order to prove murder (particularly 1st degree) there needs to be a mens rea. (not necessarily a motive, but they need to prove that Casey wanted Caylee dead). All they were able to prove is that Casey didn't seem unhappy that Caylee was dead. That is totally not the same thing.
Next: They needed to prove an actus rea. That is, they needed to prove how Caylee died, at least to some degree. Simply showing that she is dead is not enough, unless there is clear and compelling evidence that she was killed. Had her neck been broken, or her skull fractured, that would be enough, but that did not exist in this case. All they could say is that she was probably suffocated, but maybe she was ODed... or maybe something else.
next: they needed physical or circumstantial evidence. Something to prove that Casey was seen in the area that the body was discovered, or that her car tire tracks were at the scene, or that there was Caylee's blood in the trunk... anything. A "death smell" might have contributed to the deal, but it couldn't be considered as primary evidence.
Finally: the entire burden is on the state to prove these things. Casey had no obligation to even present a defense. Obviously, her team did want to throw out some possible alternative scenarios, but that is not their responsibility. It is 100% on the state, and the state overreached.
I think the state was truly counting on the emotions of the jurors pushing this case past the legal requirements. All they could prove, in fact, was that Casey is a liar, that her parents are looneys, and that Caylee is dead. They could not conclusively tie all of those things together to prove that Casey deliberately (or even negligently) killed Caylee.
As much as it saddens me that Casey Anthony seems to have escaped justice, you cannot blame the jury, or even the defense. It is 100% the fault of overeager prosecutors who brought a case to court without the corresponding evidence. And, believe me - I think they did it for the right reasons. I believe that this case impacted them and they were determined to see Casey pay, but they made a big mistake in going for murder 1 - they should have known better. Had they tried her for what they could actually PROVE - she would probably have gotten a minimum of 25-50 years.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 58
Starting with the 31 days to call 911 I always said there was a delay game and GA has been cleaning up during that time, and only when he was sure that there are no direct ties to KC was that 911 call made.
ALSO - I have said the consistent misguiding everyone to keep looking for a live Caylee, till GA was sure that enough time went by.
I do not think KC could orchestrate much.
I even think the dancing in public was suggested by her father ACT AS IF everything is OK - do what you always do".
What freaks me out is CAYLEE was tossed in a ditch by her family who should have at least given her a decent burial.
:banghead:
ALSO - I have said the consistent misguiding everyone to keep looking for a live Caylee, till GA was sure that enough time went by.
I do not think KC could orchestrate much.
I even think the dancing in public was suggested by her father ACT AS IF everything is OK - do what you always do".
What freaks me out is CAYLEE was tossed in a ditch by her family who should have at least given her a decent burial.
:banghead:
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 58
ITA with you.
For all the things the state did not have - I say only one thing.
George knew all this and made sure they would not have anything.
KC in my opinion needs to kiss his Azz.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 58
Just one flaw here IMO.
If KC came home to a dead baby, she would not sit in jail for her parents.
She would throw them under a bus.
However, IF Caylee drowned and GA was home watching his cooking show he jumped into EX LE mode and cleaned it all up helping KC before CA got home from work.
Karmaa
CASA Advocate
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 582
- Reaction score
- 2
How could they have convicted her of Aggravated Child Abuse?
The Florida code defines the crime of Aggravated Child Abuse as:
1. Committing an aggravated battery on a child;
2. Willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child; or
3. Knowingly or willfully abusing a child and in so doing causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
A child is defined as any person under the age of 18.
1. There is no evidence that Casey committed battery on Caylee
2. There is no evidence that Casey tortured, overly punished or caged Caylee
3. There is no evidence that Casey knowingly and willfully abused Caylee
The only way that this charge might have stuck was as an add-on - If the jury could be convinced that Casey murdered Caylee, then the chances are that one of the three scenarios applied.
The charge that the prosecutors SHOULD have brought was probably Negligent Homicide (I think it's called "Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence" in Florida, but don't quote me).
The thing with the law is that it is precise. It is not emotional, and that''s a good thing. In order to prove a crime, exact points must be proven, and those point must correspond to the specific law. That is a protection that we are given in this country - a basic human right.
Wishbone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,023
- Reaction score
- 11,073
I may not be able to answer the question completely but here’s something to think about…..Reasonable doubt. How well was this explained to the jury? IMO not very. Maybe JP didn’t want to try this case again because any guilty verdict would bring forth a lot of appeals and the spending goes on and on. I feel he could have explained it much more than he did. Conflicting, confusing, lying testimony. The State having the Anthonys (know liars and guilty of obstructing the case) as their star witnesses. It took the defense to explain what a filthy family they really are. And that’s just the beginning,,, how about going for the death penalty when there are large gaps in your theory not to mention many detours such as not finding the body in August and the confusing testimony of Kronk.
At the very least, she should have been found guilty of negligent homicide. There was enough evidence for that with just the not reporting Caylee missing…..The Anthonys managed to confuse and divert the evidence while shedding the light of suspicion on themselves to derail any conviction and that was their plan all along. Just have to add that they never should have been allowed to sit in the court room during the trial. What was the State thinking?
At the very least, she should have been found guilty of negligent homicide. There was enough evidence for that with just the not reporting Caylee missing…..The Anthonys managed to confuse and divert the evidence while shedding the light of suspicion on themselves to derail any conviction and that was their plan all along. Just have to add that they never should have been allowed to sit in the court room during the trial. What was the State thinking?
I agree with most of what was said previously so I won't go into that. However, two others things also had me questioning things.
I actually mentioned this in one of the threads early in the trial. The SA never showed the bad in their case. They would call a witness and put on all the things that helped their case. But refused to ask any questions that did not fit the story they wanted to tell. Instead, the allowed the defense to ask the questions. IMO, they allowed the defense to score points while making themselves look like they were trying to hide something. If they had asked the questions themselves, those answers would not have had the impact.
One example was all that testimony to show how Caylee Caylee could not open those doors to get outside. The SA even asked questions about the height of the locks and Caylee's height to imply Caylee could not open the door herself. The SA NEVER asked if Caylee could reach the lock herself. On defense, not only did Cindy admit Caylee was tall enough to reach the lock but in their case, they showed that picture of Caylee. If the SA had just asked the question and Cindy answered, it would not have had the impact. But refusing to bring in the things themselves that did not fit their story, they came off as trying to hide things, IMO.
Cindy Anthony's telling everyone about the pool ladder almost immediately. Why did Cindy start talking about that pool ladder if Casey and Caylee left that house together? Cindy Anthony seemed to be trying to get the focus back to the house instead of away from the house.
I actually mentioned this in one of the threads early in the trial. The SA never showed the bad in their case. They would call a witness and put on all the things that helped their case. But refused to ask any questions that did not fit the story they wanted to tell. Instead, the allowed the defense to ask the questions. IMO, they allowed the defense to score points while making themselves look like they were trying to hide something. If they had asked the questions themselves, those answers would not have had the impact.
One example was all that testimony to show how Caylee Caylee could not open those doors to get outside. The SA even asked questions about the height of the locks and Caylee's height to imply Caylee could not open the door herself. The SA NEVER asked if Caylee could reach the lock herself. On defense, not only did Cindy admit Caylee was tall enough to reach the lock but in their case, they showed that picture of Caylee. If the SA had just asked the question and Cindy answered, it would not have had the impact. But refusing to bring in the things themselves that did not fit their story, they came off as trying to hide things, IMO.
Cindy Anthony's telling everyone about the pool ladder almost immediately. Why did Cindy start talking about that pool ladder if Casey and Caylee left that house together? Cindy Anthony seemed to be trying to get the focus back to the house instead of away from the house.
crucibelle
Pisces
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 2
BBM. But instead, she accused him of molesting her. And, (IMO) insinuated that he had molested Caylee. We'll never know what really went on in that house or what really happened to Caylee, and for me, that is the hardest part -- even harder to deal with than the verdict.
If Casey Anthony told the truth, who would believe her?
I don't blame the jury for their decision at all; I may not agree with the NG for agg abuse or manslaughter but I think they gave up enough of their lives that this case became their world for 35 days. They lived in Casey's world for that time period, and although they weren't allowed to talk amongst themselves about it I am certain they gave a lot of thought to whose testimony and what evidence they believed prior to actual deliberation.
I don't think the prosecution concentrated on the right storyline to map out what may have happened. They should have explained that an accident thru neglect or a single act of anger that resulted in the death of Caylee was a felony action. (this was explained ad nauseum in LEGAL terms prior to deliberation but not as an emotional picture during the 31 days). . Instead they concentrated on their disgust of a young mother partying when she should have been mourning her precious toddler. Understandable, but not conclusive of anything other than that this is one bizarre girl. They focused on murder thru chloroform and duct tape-neither of which had conclusively been found to be in Casey's possession with intent to kill. If they expanded into other scenarios like an accident that Casey hid, common sense may have muddled thru to manslaughter.
Nothing about the Anthonys seems completely truthful. They each testified approx 7 times and if we doubt their testimony we're eliminating a week of trial.
The friends can all be grouped together in painting a picture of a party animal who acted 'normal' during the whole time of the 31 days. They didn't smell the decomp and most said that Casey appeared to care for her daughter. Caylee was not her universe- but that's not against the law. Opening statement about abuse and GA's defensive testimony could give juror's an excuse to explain away the unexplainable -the way Casey acted during the 31 days.
Neither the junk yard expert on human decomp nor GA- a former detective- reported the vehicle immediately-this didn't sit right with me.
While I appreciated the idea behind the air testing, it is a newer science and I wouldn't weigh it as proof - just pointing in the direction that Caylee's body was transported in the car at somepoint -which may very well have been after an accidental death Casey covered up. The flies/maggots etc and hair could also be accepted as proof of death- which we knew- but not when, how or why.
Why did GA let CA clean items from the car with his experience? Casey wasn't calling them back after CA texted or called her about the car and they hadn't seen Casey or Caylee in a long time- and CA knew there was something weird after showing up at Universal and hearing Casey change the story to Jacksonville. This was just weird to me. The weirdness of the Anthony's probably played heavily into the jury's decision.
The one witness who seemed completely honest to me was Mallory- and when she cried when talking about Casey & Caylee's bond it made it harder to picture premeditated murder. Lee cried about not being told about the pregnancy and avoided the shower but also explained that he too uses avoidance- he 'denied' Caylee was really dead for months after her remains had been found. Points to how the family deals with things.
I found that the computer searches happened too far in advance of the actual death and one expert's program said one thing, another's said something different. Many of the words could have been click throughs that came up via a layering of searches. Chloroform can be explained by her boyfriend's myspace ad posting - or the fact that college kids experiment with different type of drugs to have fun and she was hanging out with a partying group of kids. Neck breaking and shovel have different meanings in the urban dictionary that could- and should - have been brought up by the defense. As to why chloroform was in the car in such high concentration- it could have been cause of death- but accident, abuse or murder- all or none could be an explanation.
There was no evidence of long time drugging in any of the forensic testing. If she did it one time to disatrous effect- it was accidental but should be looked at as agg abuse/manslaughter-IMO- but apparently not the jury's.
Kronk was weird but I believe that his talking about moving the skull around could have changed the position of duct tape that had erroded over time. (this to me is the reason why there is no conclusive evidence- if police believed or put more effort into a search in that area in aug 2008 we may have dna, fingerprints- a full autopsy. And the trial would have been completely different)
Baez got in the dig about Lee being tested for paternity of Caylee- hints at abuse in Opening statement.
They proved Casey lied- and for years. She lied about working at Universal and had been talking about Zanny for years- not just in june 2008. She resorted to lies to spend the nite at a boyfriend or to get a babysitter for Caylee or to get out of trouble with her parents. I think it makes sense that she would continue those lies if she let her daughter die in an accident or drugged her to hang out with TL or murdered her. But we don't know which she covered up.
What I think the prosectution should have done: she was playing the working at universal/zanny watching Caylee gig for a very long time. Pull cell phone records/pings to see a pattern. Did she leave when GA was on the way to work only to come back to the house? Did that happen 5,10, 20 times? It seems plausible that she may have done that the day of June 16. Did they poll the neighbors to see if they saw her come back often after GA/CA left for work and wonder about her schedule. Most neighbors are nosy and see these patterns. If she went back home- anything could have happened that could have been from neglect. By showing a pattern this would narrow the time of when she left with Caylee and later went to hang with TL at blockbuster without her. The SA had pings that showed she was around the house (which was 2 mins from the swamp) for most of the afternoon. They also had Casey calling CA several times- trying to get a babysitter? What happened when she failed? This would be a more believeable story line that actually shows Casey with Caylee around the scene of the crime-the dump site- the last day she was seen alive. I think the police investigation concentrated on what they knew to be lies and not how to fill in the blanks. I would have liked to have seen if she went to a place like a fast food joint, library, park nearby that they could have canvassed for habits? She didn't have too much money- much of what she stole paid her phone bill and put gas in the car occassionally so she probably stayed close to home while she was supposed to be at work- but fast food places often have playgrounds for kids where she could have had free wifi while Caylee played- a library has story hours or books/playrooms for toddlers that are free and she could have logged in to a library computer to go onto myspace/email etc. I would expect her to go for short periods while she waited for her parents to leave then went back to the house until she'd have to leave to have it look like she was coming home from work. IF the SA grabbed onto the possibility of this being an accident and showed that legally an accident that happened from neglect from a caregiver(and she had to have been alone with Caylee even more than anyone thought as Zanny didn't exist and she didn't have a job) then it was at least agg child abuse or manslaughter. But they said no one covers up an accident. I think it is very possible that that is just what Casey did. If they could have showed her removing so many of Caylee's pictures from her myspace page and the TL texts the jury might have had a better insight into how Casey created a new world for herself when Caylee died-because only she knew who/when she died. The 31 days showed how Casey dealt with her daughter's loss-however little we can all understand it- but that was Casey's way of dealing with things. If the SA embraced the accident idea but showed that Casey was alone with Caylee as she very often was, then only Casey could have dumped her at the swamp. 1+1=2 as GA said- and it could have made it plausible that they now had the when, where and who which may have returned a different verdict. The one thing I felt that Baez said well is that if you have questions you cannot convict on 1st degree. The prosecution told the jury for sure what didn't happen but could never show without a doubt what did. IMO.
I don't think the prosecution concentrated on the right storyline to map out what may have happened. They should have explained that an accident thru neglect or a single act of anger that resulted in the death of Caylee was a felony action. (this was explained ad nauseum in LEGAL terms prior to deliberation but not as an emotional picture during the 31 days). . Instead they concentrated on their disgust of a young mother partying when she should have been mourning her precious toddler. Understandable, but not conclusive of anything other than that this is one bizarre girl. They focused on murder thru chloroform and duct tape-neither of which had conclusively been found to be in Casey's possession with intent to kill. If they expanded into other scenarios like an accident that Casey hid, common sense may have muddled thru to manslaughter.
Nothing about the Anthonys seems completely truthful. They each testified approx 7 times and if we doubt their testimony we're eliminating a week of trial.
The friends can all be grouped together in painting a picture of a party animal who acted 'normal' during the whole time of the 31 days. They didn't smell the decomp and most said that Casey appeared to care for her daughter. Caylee was not her universe- but that's not against the law. Opening statement about abuse and GA's defensive testimony could give juror's an excuse to explain away the unexplainable -the way Casey acted during the 31 days.
Neither the junk yard expert on human decomp nor GA- a former detective- reported the vehicle immediately-this didn't sit right with me.
While I appreciated the idea behind the air testing, it is a newer science and I wouldn't weigh it as proof - just pointing in the direction that Caylee's body was transported in the car at somepoint -which may very well have been after an accidental death Casey covered up. The flies/maggots etc and hair could also be accepted as proof of death- which we knew- but not when, how or why.
Why did GA let CA clean items from the car with his experience? Casey wasn't calling them back after CA texted or called her about the car and they hadn't seen Casey or Caylee in a long time- and CA knew there was something weird after showing up at Universal and hearing Casey change the story to Jacksonville. This was just weird to me. The weirdness of the Anthony's probably played heavily into the jury's decision.
The one witness who seemed completely honest to me was Mallory- and when she cried when talking about Casey & Caylee's bond it made it harder to picture premeditated murder. Lee cried about not being told about the pregnancy and avoided the shower but also explained that he too uses avoidance- he 'denied' Caylee was really dead for months after her remains had been found. Points to how the family deals with things.
I found that the computer searches happened too far in advance of the actual death and one expert's program said one thing, another's said something different. Many of the words could have been click throughs that came up via a layering of searches. Chloroform can be explained by her boyfriend's myspace ad posting - or the fact that college kids experiment with different type of drugs to have fun and she was hanging out with a partying group of kids. Neck breaking and shovel have different meanings in the urban dictionary that could- and should - have been brought up by the defense. As to why chloroform was in the car in such high concentration- it could have been cause of death- but accident, abuse or murder- all or none could be an explanation.
There was no evidence of long time drugging in any of the forensic testing. If she did it one time to disatrous effect- it was accidental but should be looked at as agg abuse/manslaughter-IMO- but apparently not the jury's.
Kronk was weird but I believe that his talking about moving the skull around could have changed the position of duct tape that had erroded over time. (this to me is the reason why there is no conclusive evidence- if police believed or put more effort into a search in that area in aug 2008 we may have dna, fingerprints- a full autopsy. And the trial would have been completely different)
Baez got in the dig about Lee being tested for paternity of Caylee- hints at abuse in Opening statement.
They proved Casey lied- and for years. She lied about working at Universal and had been talking about Zanny for years- not just in june 2008. She resorted to lies to spend the nite at a boyfriend or to get a babysitter for Caylee or to get out of trouble with her parents. I think it makes sense that she would continue those lies if she let her daughter die in an accident or drugged her to hang out with TL or murdered her. But we don't know which she covered up.
What I think the prosectution should have done: she was playing the working at universal/zanny watching Caylee gig for a very long time. Pull cell phone records/pings to see a pattern. Did she leave when GA was on the way to work only to come back to the house? Did that happen 5,10, 20 times? It seems plausible that she may have done that the day of June 16. Did they poll the neighbors to see if they saw her come back often after GA/CA left for work and wonder about her schedule. Most neighbors are nosy and see these patterns. If she went back home- anything could have happened that could have been from neglect. By showing a pattern this would narrow the time of when she left with Caylee and later went to hang with TL at blockbuster without her. The SA had pings that showed she was around the house (which was 2 mins from the swamp) for most of the afternoon. They also had Casey calling CA several times- trying to get a babysitter? What happened when she failed? This would be a more believeable story line that actually shows Casey with Caylee around the scene of the crime-the dump site- the last day she was seen alive. I think the police investigation concentrated on what they knew to be lies and not how to fill in the blanks. I would have liked to have seen if she went to a place like a fast food joint, library, park nearby that they could have canvassed for habits? She didn't have too much money- much of what she stole paid her phone bill and put gas in the car occassionally so she probably stayed close to home while she was supposed to be at work- but fast food places often have playgrounds for kids where she could have had free wifi while Caylee played- a library has story hours or books/playrooms for toddlers that are free and she could have logged in to a library computer to go onto myspace/email etc. I would expect her to go for short periods while she waited for her parents to leave then went back to the house until she'd have to leave to have it look like she was coming home from work. IF the SA grabbed onto the possibility of this being an accident and showed that legally an accident that happened from neglect from a caregiver(and she had to have been alone with Caylee even more than anyone thought as Zanny didn't exist and she didn't have a job) then it was at least agg child abuse or manslaughter. But they said no one covers up an accident. I think it is very possible that that is just what Casey did. If they could have showed her removing so many of Caylee's pictures from her myspace page and the TL texts the jury might have had a better insight into how Casey created a new world for herself when Caylee died-because only she knew who/when she died. The 31 days showed how Casey dealt with her daughter's loss-however little we can all understand it- but that was Casey's way of dealing with things. If the SA embraced the accident idea but showed that Casey was alone with Caylee as she very often was, then only Casey could have dumped her at the swamp. 1+1=2 as GA said- and it could have made it plausible that they now had the when, where and who which may have returned a different verdict. The one thing I felt that Baez said well is that if you have questions you cannot convict on 1st degree. The prosecution told the jury for sure what didn't happen but could never show without a doubt what did. IMO.
I could be mistaken and you do actually have a degree in psychiatry but it's factually untrue a sociopath can't be helped. It's not an easy fix but it can and has been done often.
Puzzler
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 418
- Reaction score
- 9
Really? I would genuinely like to read about such a case. Do you have any links? (Serious question, this isn't anything I've ever heard before.)
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx7t.htm
Antisocial personality disorder is often misunderstood by both professionals and laypeople. Confused with the popular terms, "sociopath" or "psychopath," someone who suffers from this disorder can be discriminated against within the mental health system, because of the symptoms of their disorder. Because there is usually a pervasive lack of remorse, and many time any feelings at all, they are assumed not to have any real feelings by many professionals. This can lead to difficulties within treatment.
I think the jury did the right thing. The case was weak, even with such an aggressive, media-fueled prosecution. And I think that it was a good day for American jurisprudence, that the jury could overcome all of the chaos surrounding this case and the pressure to find her guilty and actually go where the evidence led them.
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 254
- Guests online
- 3,720
- Total visitors
- 3,974