For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[mrsu]

This question is for those that agree with the not guilty verdicts. Please help me understand.

In your opinion, how did the state not convince you? What other info would you need to convict? Do you believe the drowning theory? What do you think really happened? Do you believe Casey did it and just that the State did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? How to you explain away the 31 days? The lying? The partying? What was the reason for the duct tape?

I am just trying to understand. I hear the defense talking heads saying simply that the state did not prove their case, but they have no explained how or why or what they think really happened.

 

[MarthaM]

I think your questions have been answered many times here by those of us who don't think the prosecution proved its case. They did not prove when, where, why, or how Casey Anthony killed her daughter. They just didn't. I would need more than bizarre behavior from a defendant to convict him/her. I have run across enough peculiar people in my lifetime to know that just because someone does odd things doesn't mean he/she is a killer.

I think there are all kinds of explanations for what could have happened to Caylee. From the beginning I thought that she died somehow and the family freaked out about it and behaved the way the Anthony family behaves--in a very peculiar way.

I have watched a number of criminal trials over the past 20 years or so, and I thought this was the poorest performance by a prosecution team. They just didn't do their job, and I think they counted on being able to convince a jury that a bad mother and a dysfunctional family translate into a murder conviction. It doesn't work that way.

 

[rabidstoat]

1. Not believing that the duct tape covered the mouth. With all the talk of animals and water degrading things and moving bones around, and the fact that I do believe Roy Kronk (not maliciously) interacted the bones, I consider it a reasonable doubt that there was some other explanation. One reasonable possibility I would consider is that whoever disposed of the body was trying to prevent fluids from leaking, or bugs from crawling into the mouth AFTER the child was dead.

2. At least some of the testimony from GA and CA was put into doubt. CA provably lied about the searches at that time of day. She was at work. GA I believe lied about the extent of his involvement with River Cruz. At the very least, he was pretty darn combative on the stand.

3. I found JB's argument that chloroform was looked up after seeing TL's graphic about it on FB was a reasonable doubt. He did apparently have an image on it on his page. The search was apparently done after this. One report said 84 hits, one said 1. The discrepancy, combined with the explanation, creates a reasonable doubt.

4. The story of burying pets did actually introduce a reasonable doubt. Someone tried to bury the child in the yard, but realized that was unreasonable, so disposed of it near the house. I think originally the body WAS buried, as well as the person (and I think it was Casey) could manage. But with all the animals and especially the water I think it would've 'bubbled up'.

An alternate reasonable scenario could be this: the child drowned. Casey, who obviously has poor coping skills and is immature in general, freaked out. She fell back to lying, because she was scared. She was in denial and freaked out and partied to try to forget it -- some people turn to drugs to drown things out, some to alcohol, she turned to partying. The body was in the car, and started to smell. She gave it the best burial she could in the swamp. Things DID spiral out of control for her. She had poor coping skills and just dealt with it totally and utterly wrong, Truth and Casey are just not acquainted with her. I doubt it even occurred to her to tell the truth! I don't think George told her "you will go to jail for the rest of your life" but she might have truly believed that.

Now, that said, I don't think that's what happened. I think she had a hand in the death. I just don't see how it was proved, because there's what I consider to be a reasonable alternative scenario above. Do I believe it? No, not really, but I'll allow it could have happened like that. She is immature enough, a pathological liar enough, sociopathic enough, and just plain batshit crazy enough to make me believe she could do utterly unbelievable things.

If I was on that jury, I would be dying to charge her with improperly disposing a body. Because I think the body was in the car. And though I think she probably had a hand in why there was a body, I think it's possible she didn't, under a reasonable (and not just out-and-out crazy) scenario.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The ONLY reason she was not convicted is because it took 6 months to find Caylee's little body.
All the evidence went away with the decomposition of her little body.

So, lesson of the day, you can get away with murder if you can hide the body long enough.

JMO

 

[rabidstoat]

I also think that the fact that 'reasonable doubt' is so hard to quantitatively define makes it hard on jurors. Where do you draw the line between 'reasonable' and 'speculative'?

 

[olive]

What ever happened in this country to common sense? Reasonable doubt does not trump common sense last time I checked.

 

[Trident]

The ONLY reason she was not convicted is because it took 6 months to find Caylee's little body.
All the evidence went away with the decomposition of her little body.

So, lesson of the day, you can get away with murder if you can hide the body long enough.

JMO

I don't believe Casey was smart enough to think about the body becoming skeletonized and leaving no traces of anything, but others in the family were, in my opinion.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I don't believe Casey was smart enough to think about the body becoming skeletonized and leaving no traces of anything, but others in the family were, in my opinion.

I'm not saying she thought it out beforehand.
I'm just saying that since it took 6 months for the remains to be found, all the evidence was gone.

I don't think anybody else was involved.

 

[cluciano63]

Well, LE had their chance to find Caylee before the storm came in...they blew it bigtime IMO...and also created the Ray Kronk scenario by doing so...

 

[ShouldBWorking]

The ONLY reason she was not convicted is because it took 6 months to find Caylee's little body.
All the evidence went away with the decomposition of her little body.

So, lesson of the day, you can get away with murder if you can hide the body long enough.

JMO

MY 12 year old said almost these exact words tonight, she picked the right place to hid the body.....

 

[capricorn]

It's just hard for us to get into the minds of the jurors and what they heard. We know so much, so we can't be objective.

I can't fathom that the jury didn't get the logic of the prosecution. But they didn't. There's no way that out of 12 jurors, there wouldn't have been heated debate. But evidently there wasn't.

My only conclusion is that from what their ears heard, the prosecution's case wasn't convincing.

But I just don't get it!

 

[Stripehaven]

I got registered here just in time for the verdict. I believe Casey had something to do with the death, and I basically tend to buy the prosecution's theory about motive, but I have to agree that some of the trial made me uneasy. I appreciate your laying out a possible alternative, RabidStoat. It makes me feel better about my BS detector going off during some of the testimony.

 

[animlzrule]

This question is for those that agree with the not guilty verdicts. Please help me understand.

In your opinion, how did the state not convince you? What other info would you need to convict? Do you believe the drowning theory? What do you think really happened? Do you believe Casey did it and just that the State did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? How to you explain away the 31 days? The lying? The partying? What was the reason for the duct tape?

I am just trying to understand. I hear the defense talking heads saying simply that the state did not prove their case, but they have no explained how or why or what they think really happened.

The DA should have adjusted the charges according to the evidence that MOST LIKELY was going to assure a conviction. They took a huge gamble, and unfortunately lost. I find it completely plausible that ICA was neglecting Caylee, found her floating in the pool and took measures to cover it up and was relieved that she was no longer saddled with the responsibility of motherhood. Mother Nature, time and pathology created the perfect storm and now she gets off. Personally, I believe the duct tape doesn't prove anything in particular. It's an oddity, but just one of many things that doesn't add up in this whole sordid affair. People aren't (or at least shouldn't be) put to death because they are morally bankrupt and despicable. There is still the burden of proof that has to be met. If they could go back and revise the charges, I believe they would.

 

[pinkflamingo]

Why would Casey sit in jail making up stories about Zanny the Nanny to protect George, who she hated if this was just a big accident? Surely JB (who was hired by Casey on July 16th or 17th) would advise her to spit it out so she could go home. Surely once she was denied bail, she would have talked. The duct tape could have been explained away by bugs or bodily fluids leaking. Why why why ? This is why I think she was guilty....and I can't figure out why the jury didn't see this.

 

[Starling]

I agree with the verdict. From day one, when it was announced this little girl was missing, they did an aerial view of the home and as soon as I saw the swimming pool, I thought 'Oh God! This is an accident and she is afraid to tell.'

You can't just trump up charges against someone and pray one might stick. The evidence was not there. If they thought this was abuse, they needed to prove it. They did not show one time, that before June 16, when Casey would tell her mother that the baby was with the Nanny - that the baby was anywhere other than really with the mother.

Casey had the type of mother, that you couldn't say to, 'I'm giving up my job at disney and I'm gonna be a shot girl because they get paid better.' She had the type of mother, that would say, 'try it and I will take your baby. you are unfit.'

I would recommend not becoming to emotionally invested in any given case because often you will be disappointed. I learned my lesson the hard way in the Ramsey case, so I empathize with all of you.

 

[Mandy113]

I respect the opinions of those who agree with the verdict. I'm stuck on this one point though. It may be possible someone would panic after an accident and try to cover it up. But for 3 years? A person would sit in jail for 3 years and trust their fate to a jury rather than tell the truth about a terrible accident which happened?

Honestly, I'm not debating those who believe the jury verdict was correct. I'm simply trying to understand how you fit all the pieces together. Thank you.

 

[brighidin]

I don't agree with the verdict, but it doesn't surprise me. I think that the state could have done a better job in trying to portray Casey as a woman who did not want to be a mother, but rather, a single, unattached partygirl. They didn't dwell on TL not wanting a kid, especially a girl, around, for example. I also agree with the legal expert quoted in the article I will link to after my post that JB threw so many red herrings at the jury that reasonable doubt was created. The chloroform searches were a confusing bust, and there isn't any proof that she made or prchased any. And finally, partying/chilling etc for 31 days, while reprehensible, doesn't mean one is a murderer.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/05/2301017/jose-baez-casey-anthonys-lawyer.html
From the article: "Jarvis, who has followed the case closely, said Baez threw out so many red herrings on how Caylee died that jurors’ heads were probably spinning."

All moo.

​

 

[Peepers]

If the jury thought Caylee drowned in the pool, they could have convicted her for aggravated manslaughter. it seems that the fact that there is no actual proven cause of death, or date of death for that matter, that the jury was really stuck on that. there was reasonable doubt of murder, I get that. The fact that the jurors did not want any interviews or their names to be released tells me they took it very seriously.

 

[Peepers]

If you dont take the emotion out of it, you wont be able to see what the jury saw...or didnt see.

 

[rachelle]

I think the jurors believed it was an accident but I am confused then on why they couldn't charge her with a crime for covering it up all this time.

Is it because there wasn't that charge for them to pick from? And what exactly would the charge be for that?