I don't go on this website so often. But today I've seen this case at the top. And I couldn't not click because of the age (2 year old). I find there is a special place in hell for child killers.
I read about this case and I was stunned to find that the mother was not found guilty? especially with the history of internet search, lying about whereabouts for 31 days, more lying after about death.
C'mon the scotch tape on the toddler's face? decomposition chemicals in the car trunk? smells ?
It's beyond me as to why a jury would find her not guilty? What evidence was presented that could prove that she was not the killer?
Does it mean if a person murdered somebody else and buried the body for over 30 days so the body skeletonize. Then no matter the evidence you can't prosecute?
I am just trying to understand how justice worked here. Thank you
I read a lot of the discovery as it was released to the public, so I'm very familiar with the evidence. I also watched the trial. There was plenty of evidence to convict her. Some think because there was no cause of death, you cant convict. That's simply not true. Dr G testified that although there wasn't a cause of death because the remains were skeletonized, the manner of death was homicide. A jury should not reward a killer with a not guilty verdict because they hid the remains until decomposition was to the point no cause of death could be rendered. The reason the manner of death was ruled a homicide was because as Dr G said, no child should be found with duct tape around their mouth, bagged up in a laundry bag and trash bags, tossed in the woods.
As I was watching the trial, I was livid at the shenanigans of Jose Baez, Casey's attorney. He gave an opening statement, and then presented no evidence of what he said. To defend her behavior of lying, partying, and acting as if everything was fine during the 31 days Caylee was "missing", he said it was because her father, George, molested her as a child, and she got used to pretending things were fine. He then proceeded to say Caylee drowned in the pool, and George was the one who told Casey he would take care of it. So, according to Baez, this loving Grandfather put duct tape over his own Grandaughter's mouth and dumped her. There was no evidence of any of this, and the judge told the jury "What the lawyers say is NOT evidence".
This jury should have only considered the evidence, and not allowed a defense attorney to lead them down a rabbit hole.
As far as the evidence Casey was guilty .. there was a lot of it. Her group of friends and her new boyfriend, who she was clearly infatuated with, and wanted to spend all her time with, were all young adults of college age, and none of them were tied down with a 2 year old. Reading through her text messages, it was obvious finding child care for Caylee was an issue. Her boyfriend would get annoyed when he wanted her to come over and spend the night, but she couldn't get a babysitter. Casey's mother Cindy, loved Caylee dearly, but she was tired of Casey not living up to her responsibilities as a mother. Casey resented the fact that Cindy acted more like Caylee's mother. So when people say 'why kill the child, and not just let the grandmother, Cindy, raise her?", Casey would never prove Cindy right. They had such a contentious relationship, that Casey's own grandmother said "Casey hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee". Casey also lied to everyone , saying she had a nanny named Zanny. All her friends, her parents, and her brother believed her. There were times when Casey would take Caylee somewhere and no one knew where she was. It's speculated she was drugging Caylee with Xanax (Zanny), and putting her in the trunk of the car.
Skipping ahead to the day of Caylee's death. According to the defense attorney, Casey woke up to George yelling and holding a dead Caylee in his arms after pulling her out of the pool, yelling to Casey "look what you've done .. you're mother will never forgive you, and you'll go to jail for the rest of your life". Then, he told Casey to just go about her life as normal, and he would "take care of it". There are several issues with this story. First, Casey's computer logs show she was messaging people all morning, so she obviously wasn't sleeping. And during the time this supposed drowning would have happened, she was on her computer. George worked that afternoon. There's no way a loving Grandfather could dump his grandaughter's body, then go to work as if nothing happened. He also has a law enforcement background, so he knew she wouldn't go to jail for the rest of her life, if they did everything they could to try and save the child. Second of all, George testified Casey and Caylee left their house around 1pm that day. Casey told him she was going to work (she didn't have a job .. that was a lie), and she was taking Caylee to the nanny's (which we now know there wasn't a nanny). When George left for work around 2:30, they weren't back. Casey's phone pings off cell towers by their home again later that day, so she went back to the house after George left. There's a flurry of phone calls later that afternoon from Casey to Cindy. My suspicion is either she was looking for Cindy to babysit, or that's when something happened, and she was initially going to tell Cindy, but Cindy didn't answers. Later that day Casey's phone goes silent for a few hours.
A few days after this, friends testified to an odd smell in her trunk. Casey told them she hit a squirrel. The neighbor also testified she backed in the driveway, which she has never done, and came to his house to borrow a shovel. It is suspected she was going to bury Caylee in the back yard because cadaver dogs later hit on a spot back there.
There's way too much evidence for me to list here, but both Websleuths and a site called acandyrose are great resources for spelling out timelines and evidence. I'm a nurse, so the scientific evidence was fascinating to me, but for that jury, I think most of it went over their heads. They focused on the opening statement and that was it. They didn't review a single piece of evidence before making their decision. They even had the option to convict her of manslaughter due to child neglect, and acquitted her on that charge too! Even i
f they believed the drowning story, how could they not convict her of neglect? Their answer?.... "we didn't know who was responsible for Caylee that day". What?! Casey was not a 15 year old mother. She was an adult. It really seemed like jury nullification to me. They didn't WANT to convict her, for whatever reason. When I heard what a few of them had to say after that travesty of a verdict, it was obvious to me, they ignored all the evidence. They said they didn't want to use emotion when making a decision. They confused emotion with common sense. You're supposed to use common sense and draw conclusions based on the evidence, but they refused to do it. When you add it all up ... the inconvenience Caylee was to her .. the lies ... her behavior afterward of partying & having fun .. the forensic evidence in the car .. the forensic evidence at the dump site .. the testimony of the neighbor .. the computer searches for 'neck breaking', 'how to make chloroform', 'foolproof suffocation', etc., the only conclusion you can draw is Casey was responsible for Caylee's death. Whether it was an accidental overdose, or murder, I'm still not sure, but it is clear to me, and to many of us who were devastated with the verdict, she is the only one responsible for Caylee's death.
