Casey Anthony Trial

Rob wrote:

It would've been more believable if they'd left George out of it, and said that Casey had acted on her own in a panic after finding Caylee drowned. Because it really taxes the imagination to think that a retired cop would decide that the best way to handle an accidental drowning is to take the body and dump it in the woods.

Exactly. The idea of that was ridiculous and the prosecutor said something to the same effect yesterday, that 'believing that someone (let alone a retired cop) would panic after an accidental drowning and hide a body, rather than calling 911, is not rational.' It would require "taking a trip down the rabbit hole".


I think in the world of DNA and hardcore evidence that juries now expect to be handed on a silver platter, THIS is where Caylee's justice was failed. If this case had been tried, say, 20-30 years ago, Casey would be found guilty. I think this is a prime example of DNA evidence (or in this case the lack thereof) being a Catch 22.


Gin & Teresa, I agree with both of you...the parents should NOT take her back!!! How CAN they?! And Gin, that is SO true, what you said about George's disappointment....I think a desperate parent like that, of someone SO troubled, would want someone to take action so that they don't have to. My gosh, I HOPE they at least sentence her to SOME kind of psychological therapy???? She is a compulsive liar!!!

It is just absolute *insert whatever you want to here* that she is NOT GUILTY!!

It just shows what a horrible mess legal systems are nowadays!

Amy wrote:

I think in the world of DNA and hardcore evidence that juries now expect to be handed on a silver platter, THIS is where Caylee's justice was failed.

Somebody made a similar point on Bill O'Reilly tonight - if there isn't an actual videotape of a crime, there's a reluctance to convict. They said that this jury obviously confused "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt."

the whole thing is messed up.She should be in jail..... she got away with murder.

At the very least, why wasn't she charged with one of the lesser counts, like child neglect? When she didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days............isn't that the definition of neglect????????? It's just sooooooooo crazy. I can't believe she wasn't found guilty on one of the lesser charges. If she's allowed to walk out of the courtroom on Thursday, what is she going to do? Who will be there for her? It's not safe for her to just walk out the doors and down the steps on her own. Should be interesting..............

She'll probably be secretly escorted somewhere safe, but hopefully not to her parent's house.

She was found guilty on 4 counts, not sure which ones.....also.....just because she was found "Not Guilty" does NOT make her innocent.......Hmm, I learned something from working with attorneys...

Best article yet: Marcia Clark's take on this verdict...

http://news.yahoo.com/worse-o-j-231200719.html

Thanks for posting that, Amy. Very good article.

The 4 counts that she was found guilty on were lying to law enforcement. My husband and I were trying to make sense out of all of this, and came to the conclusion that since the jury found it more believable that Caylee drowned, then the other testimony wouldn't matter, like the fact that Casey had not called police until 31 days after Caylee went missing. If Caylee had drowned, then she was already dead all those weeks ago. But.........be that as it may, isn't the fact that Casey didn't call 911 after Caylee "drowned" a crime? Ummm, I would think so. Her new story was that Caylee had drowned, and that Casey was so freaked out that she had her father help her cover it up. That's obstruction of justice.

And yes, I agree. Casey wasn't found innocent, just not guilty. Since they went for murder 1, and the final outcome could have been the death penalty, the jury may have been leery of that. If it would have been man slaughter, I believe that the jury would have found her guilty. What's worse than finding someone not guilty that is probably guilty, is finding someone guilty that is really innocent. It's sad to think of the innocent people that spend their life in prison for a crime they didn't commit. That was a good article, Amy. Thanks for posting it. I really do believe that they had enough evidence against Casey. That's why they went for murder 1. Very sad.................and to think she may get pregnant again someday..................

How come I never heard mention of Caylee's father? Not once!

It was a last ditch effort of the defense to pull George Anthony into the crime scene. Another one of Casey's "stories." Throwing her dad under the bus like that was pretty low.

She's gonna have to live with this for the rest of her life. I mean,That's a scary thought knowing she can get prgeant again.

"The View" had the prosecuting attorney on this morning, and Barbara Walters will be interviewing the defense attorney this evening.

You're welcome Rob & Teresa.

Teresa wrote:

But.........be that as it may, isn't the fact that Casey didn't call 911 after Caylee "drowned" a crime? Ummm, I would think so. Her new story was that Caylee had drowned, and that Casey was so freaked out that she had her father help her cover it up. That's obstruction of justice.

I am baffled by this too. I still can't believe they didn't get her for child abuse or neglect, and obstruction of justice. I mean, come on people!!!!

Teresa wrote:

I really do believe that they had enough evidence against Casey. That's why they went for murder 1.

But yeah, to think they would have had a guilty conviction on a manslaughter just breaks my heart. There again, I realize they believed they had a strong enough case, but weren't they at all concerned previously about the lack of hard physical evidence? I guess part of me really does wonder why they didn't go for manslaughter. It wasn't exactly cut and dry from the get-go.

easyt72000 wrote:

How come I never heard mention of Caylee's father? Not once!

Hmmm, that IS strange. I didn't watch the trial from the beginning. But yeah, did they ever mention anything about Caylee's father? Where IS he??? Maybe it was a one night stand kind of thing and he never had anything to do with her? I don't know.

sweetkrissy2011 wrote:

I mean,That's a scary thought knowing she can get prgeant again.

That was the first thing that went through my mind when I heard the conviction. There is NO protecting any future children from her now.

Teresa wrote:

"The View" had the prosecuting attorney on this morning, and Barbara Walters will be interviewing the defense attorney this evening.

Oh, thanks for that, Teresa! I missed the View but I'll check online later or tomorrow. Barbara's interview should be very interesting tonight.

The Today Show had the Prosecuting Attorney on this morning as well.....They also talked with an 'alternate juror' about the case.......Later they had 3 female attorneys talking about the situation. Amazing stuff, just amazing!

Nancy Grace interviewed a guy yesterday who MAY have been Caylee's father. He was a past boyfriend. I don't think Casey ever told anyone who the father was, even the father himself. Who knows, maybe she doesn't even know for sure.

It's hard to go with murder 1 when you don't have the DNA or cause of death evidence. But, there have been people convicted of murder 1 without that evidence. This particular jury just didn't "get it." There was soooooo much other evidence against her, though, DNA or no DNA.

Her ex-fiance was on the Today Show as well....he was very upset with the verdict....had pics of him with infant Caylee on his chest. He mentioned what a dysfunctional family it was.

Well when there is a disfunctional family like this they take each other back. SO dont be surprised if they have a barbque and all is well. I would hope not, but somewhere down the road that may happen.

I just have to vison Caylee in Heaven picking flowers, running with other children, petting baby animals . She is happy, warm and never alone. FOREVER....thank goodness out of harms way. God will take care of Casey when the time is right.

The courts may say that she is innocent but if she isn't, she won't have gotten away with anything. She will still have to face the ULTIMATE JUDGE one day.
So shall we all.

I really hope she has no more kids. It's pretty sad if she doesn't understand what she did was wrong.

I've been thinking,If she did't want the child anymore.Could she have not gave the rights over to the father? instead of killing her?

I don't quite buy the drowning story... If Caylee drowned in the pool then why would Casey's car have the smell of a dead body?
I suppose in her panic she could have grabbed Caylee out of the pool and carried her to the car and drove off, being afraid of what would happen... but if it were accident, why the panic and attempt to hide what happened?

I read that there was a blanket found near Caylee's body... that makes me wonder if there were any shreds of clothes still on Caylee's body and if there were clothes, what type of clothes it looked to be.

Oops, reading Amy's article it mentions clothing found near the body... but not on the body...
I kind of wonder if someone tampered with the scene...

What exactly happened, I don't know. I think that there probably is a grain of truth in what Casey has said...
Casey was in jail multiple times in 2008 not only due to the disappearance of Caylee, but also because of theft and forgery... which to me shows that she's struggling mentally and definitely needs help...

I think that it's also possible that her parents are also not telling the truth.

What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.

From what I know (and I admit that I have not seen even one portion of the trial on TV, and I have only read some things on the internet and watched the video of the verdicts being read), I think the jury just were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, because there really is no hard physical evidence that proves that Casey did kill Caylee. People need to remember that Americans are blessed to live in a country where you are innocent unless proven guilty, rather than guilty unless proven innocent. I just don't think that the jury was convinced of Casey being proven guilty. They may even believe that she did it, but if they did not feel it was actually proven, they cannot just base a guilty verdict on gut feelings and wacky behavior of the defendant.

That's how I feel. I think it is terrible that so many people seem to be acting like the jury does not care about Caylee, etc. etc. or acting like the jury is completely stupid or something.

still seems unfair.

I watched this entire thing (and when I missed something I watched the highlights). I am going to go on a long rant now. And if anyone actually reads it, thank you for taking the time. But I feel like I have to say this.

I couldn't care less about the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy. And I don't care what the jury said. I know it is the law. And I have to accept it. But I am never going to respect it. Why not? Because these jurors clearly did NOT follow the instructions correctly.

The fact that people keep saying that this maybe shouldn't have been a 1st degree case is kind of nonsense. Every bit of evidence pointed to the fact that it was 1st degree. But if I hear one more time that the jurors probably didn't want to sentence her to death, I think I will just pull all of my hair out of my head. Why? Well.....
#1 - They weren't supposed to base their judgement on the final punishment. And the one juror already said that that played a part in their decision (if she is telling the truth). There is the first stage, which is to determine whether or not she is guilty of 1st degree murder. After that comes the penalty phase. THAT is when they would decide whether or not to give her the death penalty. So even if they would've decided that it was first degree murder, she would not necessarily have to be put to death. Her punishment would've been either death or life without the possibilty of parole. What was so hard to understand about that? I don't get what they didn't understand. I really wish people would stop saying that it was hard to punish her in that way. They didn't even have to give her death that WHEN THAT PHASE CAME UP. That NEVER should've been in their minds when it came to just the conviction.
#2 - They did not have to convict her on just 1st degree murder. They had other options. They could've said 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter (if they believe the "accident" theory). THEY HAD OPTIONS! They clearly did NOT know what they were doing.
#3 - They hardly took any notes. What baffled me was how you would hear some jurors would take notes for the prosecution and some for the defense. What sense did that make? And why wouldn't they have asked for ANY evidence in their decision? You do not make a decision in a case of this magnitude in under 11 hours without having asked to look at any evidence. Even if they thought the evidence wasn't there, how would they really know without double checking first?

I don't want to hear another juror say they were "sick" about the decision. That is absurd. They didn't put her to death. So what are they sick about? Then they say things like they know she wasn't innocent but there wasn't any evidence there to find her guilty. What does that mean? That is nothing but a contradiction. Maybe I am just terribly ignorant, but how can a person say there isn't any evidence to find her guilty? There had to be something if that person thinks she wasn't innocent. I just don't understand that way of thinking.

Someone said something about the jurors not being able to have access to what all the rest of us had access to (i.e. the media, computers, et.c.). So are they saying that they would've convicted her if they had access to "social media"? My God, how did they ever convict someone 150 years ago then???

In reality, we really didn't know any more than the jurors. Except for the fact that she put those tears on just for them. I remember clearly when they wanted to submit the one piece of evidence with Caylee's face, skull and duct tape all superimposed over each other. When the jury wasn't in the courtroom she sat their watching the film of that happening. When the jury came back, she turned her head (and may have even "cried" a little). That is the one fact we had over those jurors.

Her family. Personally, I don't think they are really all that overly dysfunctional. I think all of the dysfunction comes from Casey. If there is any dysfunction there, it comes from her and it makes the rest of them behave the way that they do. My mother is just convinced that she is the bad seed. I think it is possible.

As for her mother lying on the stand, yes, if it is the law, I think she should be charged with perjury. I don't think we need to beat up on her father, though. His lying about a possible affair is completely different than her mother lying about those computer searches.

As for evidence, what was missing that they say was missing? So she parties. That doesn't make her a killer. So she got a tattoo. That doesn't make her a killer. She lies. That doesn't make her a killer either. But when you combine all of those things with everything else, I think her guilt is pretty obvious.

Forget chloroform. She looked up things like neck breaking. There is no need to make searches like that.

Nobody does not report their child missing for all of those days. Say it really was an accident and she panicked and tried to cover it up. OK. She still went out and partied like nothing happened. She could say that she got that tattoo in honor of her daughter. But why would she do that when her daughter was supposedly just missing? And those lies. She just told one lie after another and after another. She told them that she spoke to Caylee when she knew she was dead all along. What kind of a creature is she?

Then there is the whole decomposition thing. OK. Law enforcement smelled it (along with her father) and others (tow truck guy, et.c.). But the one that stands out to me is her mother. If you listen to that 911 call, her mother is too hysterical to just come up with that. In a way, it was slightly random when she says that it smelled like a dead body. Then there are CADAVER DOGS. How can the jury ignore them? THAT IS BEYOND ME!!! Not only did they hit the car, but they hit that spot in the backyard. Those dogs aren't going to lie.

It is also amazing how people forget the fact that there was plant growth in her remains. So how could Roy Kronk have taken them, kept them somewhere and then replaced them again? That was ridiculous.

But with all of that evidence, there was one statement that stood out to me. Her brother said he asked her something like "Why don't you let Mom see Caylee?" or something like that. This is when she was supposedly missing, I believe. And she responds with something along the lines of "Maybe I am just a spiteful b----". That is what would've done it for me. Actually, that is what did it for me. Then I heard all of the other evidence with that. And to me it is nothing but 1st degree murder. Plain and simple.

Something is wrong. Either that jury is really stupid or they just didn't pay attention to anything. They had OPTIONS. Yes, I did just call them stupid. I don't care. I am entitled to that opinion as long as others think they are entitled to the opposite opinion. This was a common sense case. Fine. They aren't stupid. They just don't have any common sense. I have a right to my opinion. And that is my opinion.

There was DNA. And that was a hair from a decomposed person in the trunk. For some reason that doesn't convince people. Yet, Scott Peterson (a case that I think is really close to this one) had a hair from his wife in his boat. Yes, they found her with the water, but still, I always said that I didn't know how people could convict him with evidence like that. After all, the hair could've been on his clothes and that is how it got into the boat. But people accepted that as evidence. Yet, the evidence of the hair in this current case, the kind of hair that it was, they didn't think was good enough. I am confused by that.

What is this obsession with DNA anyway? Again, my God, how did they ever convict someone 150 years ago?

The closing arguments by the prosecution was perfect. It explained everything perfectly. And if they didn't get what they were saying, enough to debate it a little longer than they did, well, you know my opinion by now, I think. So I won't say anymore.


OK. So I apologize for going on like this, but I knew about all of this from the day she was missing. To realize that it all comes down to this, it is almost unreal. But it is what it is now. So yes, I accept the decision, but I don't respect the decision.

Anyway, that is all I care to say about it. I am not going to comment again.

Before I forget, rumor has it there was a thunderstorm in Orlando and a bolt hit the EXACT tree where Caylee was. This happened today. Of all of the trees, it just happened to hit that one? Interesting, don't you think? That is all I will say about that, too.

i agree with what your saying

the judge and jury are sure stupid in this....