Casey Anthony

[MaggieMae]

Cindy did not lie, MM. Casey did it.

Cindy didn't lie about what?

 

[Iridescence]

OMGorsh...

 

[MaggieMae]

Then how to explain George Anthony's claim that he saw Casey leave with Caylee sometime in the morning of July 16th with backpacks before he left for work around 12:30? Who is LE and why would "LE" be trying to help find Caylee at that point?

See these are just a few of the timeframe questions that the bumbling defense should have pursued further and tied together. Now it all just hangs out there unanswered.

George stated that he last saw Caylee, with Casey in the above-referenced circumstances, on June 16th, not July 16th. "LE," law enforcement, arrested Casey on July 16th for child neglect, obstruction of justice, and false statements. The timing was laid out correctly during the trial.

Then my mistake only exacerbates the timeframe problem. Allegedly Casey had been searching chloroform during the week of March 17 (the presumption by prosecution that she planned it all 3 months in advance), so if Casey killed her on or about June 16, why would she wait until the following month to delete all the incriminating evidence from the computer?

 

[wharfrat]

There's still no conclusive proof that SHE "hid the body." That's the problem with this whole case. If Casey had used chloroform to subdue the child and wanted it to appear she had drowned, that would have been an easier way, and much more explanable to the authorities, than hiding the body in the trunk of her car until she could figure out where to dump it.

Conclusively proving a killer hid a person's body doesn't conclusively prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

If Bob kills Bill, and Joe hides Bill, Bob still killed Bill, correct?

 

[wharfrat]

Then how to explain George Anthony's claim that he saw Casey leave with Caylee sometime in the morning of July 16th with backpacks before he left for work around 12:30? Who is LE and why would "LE" be trying to help find Caylee at that point?

See these are just a few of the timeframe questions that the bumbling defense should have pursued further and tied together. Now it all just hangs out there unanswered.

George stated that he last saw Caylee, with Casey in the above-referenced circumstances, on June 16th, not July 16th. "LE," law enforcement, arrested Casey on July 16th for child neglect, obstruction of justice, and false statements. The timing was laid out correctly during the trial.

Then my mistake only exacerbates the timeframe problem. Allegedly Casey had been searching chloroform during the week of March 17 (the presumption by prosecution that she planned it all 3 months in advance), so if Casey killed her on or about June 16, why would she wait until the following month to delete all the incriminating evidence from the computer?

I agree with you that Casey's internet searches for chloroform go to the element of premeditation. The jury doesn't need to hypothesize about why she may or may not be very smart, or whether someone else in the family may have deleted that information for her. The prosecution only has to show that she unlawfully killed Caylee with a premeditated design, or that she killed Caylee while in the process of committing a felony enumerated in the above-referenced Florida statute.

 

[oldsalt]

This entire case has been a study in chaos and disorganization.

Still c an't admit when yer wrong, huh?

Some of us won't admit we're wrong until we see the proof. Imagine that.

What more proof do you need?

 

[MaggieMae]

There's still no conclusive proof that SHE "hid the body." That's the problem with this whole case. If Casey had used chloroform to subdue the child and wanted it to appear she had drowned, that would have been an easier way, and much more explanable to the authorities, than hiding the body in the trunk of her car until she could figure out where to dump it.

Conclusively proving a killer hid a person's body doesn't conclusively prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

If Bob kills Bill, and Joe hides Bill, Bob still killed Bill, correct?

Only if it can be p.r.o.v.e.n (somehow???) that Bob did kill Bill. Bob may have helped hide the body, but may not have actually pulled the trigger. Criminal trials are full of such cases where it cannot be proven who actually inflicted the fatal wound, and unfortunately, the jails are also full of possibly innocent people because juries believed one witness (or evidence) over another. Although our system of jurisprudence is probably the best in the world, it still isn't flawless where a blanket statement can be made, and arbitrarily accepted as truth, that someone is guilty or not.

Actually, I went back and read the autopsy report, and even Dr. G made the ambiguous conclusion: HOMICIDE BY UNDETERMINED MEANS. Yet the prosecution's entire case rests on Casey's philandering history and her lies (which is the only p.r.o.o.f they have for motive), that she killed her daughter with chloroform (no p.r.o.o.f of chloroform except in "trace" amounts on the car carpet sample), and that she did it by using duct tape to cover her mouth and finish the job (the piece of duct tape found was never p.r.o.v.e.n to be "over her mouth").

 

[WillowTree]

There's still no conclusive proof that SHE "hid the body." That's the problem with this whole case. If Casey had used chloroform to subdue the child and wanted it to appear she had drowned, that would have been an easier way, and much more explanable to the authorities, than hiding the body in the trunk of her car until she could figure out where to dump it.

Conclusively proving a killer hid a person's body doesn't conclusively prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

If Bob kills Bill, and Joe hides Bill, Bob still killed Bill, correct?

Only if it can be p.r.o.v.e.n (somehow???) that Bob did kill Bill. Bob may have helped hide the body, but may not have actually pulled the trigger. Criminal trials are full of such cases where it cannot be proven who actually inflicted the fatal wound, and unfortunately, the jails are also full of possibly innocent people because juries believed one witness (or evidence) over another. Although our system of jurisprudence is probably the best in the world, it still isn't flawless where a blanket statement can be made, and arbitrarily accepted as truth, that someone is guilty or not.

Actually, I went back and read the autopsy report, and even Dr. G made the ambiguous conclusion: HOMICIDE BY UNDETERMINED MEANS. Yet the prosecution's entire case rests on Casey's philandering history and her lies (which is the only p.r.o.o.f they have for motive), that she killed her daughter with chloroform (no p.r.o.o.f of chloroform except in "trace" amounts on the car carpet sample), and that she did it by using duct tape to cover her mouth and finish the job (the piece of duct tape found was never p.r.o.v.e.n to be "over her mouth").

That bitch needs to go to jail for the rest of her life just because she didn't report her child missing for 31 days. Then when her mom did report it and report the "smell of DEATH" in her car she lied to the police at every opportunity. She's lucky I'm not on that jury. but I'm betting most of em think the same way I do. If Missy was innocent then she wouldn't have tried to cover up her shit.

 

[MaggieMae]

George stated that he last saw Caylee, with Casey in the above-referenced circumstances, on June 16th, not July 16th. "LE," law enforcement, arrested Casey on July 16th for child neglect, obstruction of justice, and false statements. The timing was laid out correctly during the trial.

Then my mistake only exacerbates the timeframe problem. Allegedly Casey had been searching chloroform during the week of March 17 (the presumption by prosecution that she planned it all 3 months in advance), so if Casey killed her on or about June 16, why would she wait until the following month to delete all the incriminating evidence from the computer?

I agree with you that Casey's internet searches for chloroform go to the element of premeditation. The jury doesn't need to hypothesize about why she may or may not be very smart, or whether someone else in the family may have deleted that information for her. The prosecution only has to show that she unlawfully killed Caylee with a premeditated design, or that she killed Caylee while in the process of committing a felony enumerated in the above-referenced Florida statute.

But in my mind, they have failed to do that. Sadly, that's not to say they won't win on those points, but I'd simply like to see something more concrete than some alleged potential grand plan.

 

[MaggieMae]

Still c an't admit when yer wrong, huh?

Some of us won't admit we're wrong until we see the proof. Imagine that.

What more proof do you need?

Still waiting. Got some?

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

proof n. confirmation of a fact by evidence. In a court trial proof is what the trier of the fact (jury or judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied the evidence shows by "a preponderance of the evidence" in civil (non-criminal) cases and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal prosecutions. However, each alleged fact must be proved separately, as must all the facts necessary to reach a judgment for the plaintiff (the person filing a lawsuit) or for the prosecution (the "people" or "state" represented by the prosecutor).

The defendants in both civil suits and criminal trials need not provide absolute "proof" of non-responsibility (in a civil case) or innocence in a criminal case, since the burden is on the plaintiff or prosecution to prove their cases (or prove the person guilty). (See: preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt)

 

[Iridescence]

Conclusively proving a killer hid a person's body doesn't conclusively prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

If Bob kills Bill, and Joe hides Bill, Bob still killed Bill, correct?

Only if it can be p.r.o.v.e.n (somehow???) that Bob did kill Bill. Bob may have helped hide the body, but may not have actually pulled the trigger. Criminal trials are full of such cases where it cannot be proven who actually inflicted the fatal wound, and unfortunately, the jails are also full of possibly innocent people because juries believed one witness (or evidence) over another. Although our system of jurisprudence is probably the best in the world, it still isn't flawless where a blanket statement can be made, and arbitrarily accepted as truth, that someone is guilty or not.

Actually, I went back and read the autopsy report, and even Dr. G made the ambiguous conclusion: HOMICIDE BY UNDETERMINED MEANS. Yet the prosecution's entire case rests on Casey's philandering history and her lies (which is the only p.r.o.o.f they have for motive), that she killed her daughter with chloroform (no p.r.o.o.f of chloroform except in "trace" amounts on the car carpet sample), and that she did it by using duct tape to cover her mouth and finish the job (the piece of duct tape found was never p.r.o.v.e.n to be "over her mouth").

That bitch needs to go to jail for the rest of her life just because she didn't report her child missing for 31 days. Then when her mom did report it and report the "smell of DEATH" in her car she lied to the police at every opportunity. She's lucky I'm not on that jury. but I'm betting most of em think the same way I do. If Missy was innocent then she wouldn't have tried to cover up her shit.

What are your words saying about the state of your own heart??? OMG how I only hope to say the things I could for myself deal with the consequences of. What position has life put you in, dear poster, that you are so far elevated from this particular 'girl's' situation? Do you have children? Are you married? Do you live with YOUR pa*rents? How old are you? SHE lied because of many factors, if you don't understand those factors it may be wiser if you don't criticize her actions.

AND if 'Missy' had been the product of a system other than that by all nature is obviously as deceptive as hell the 'Missy' would have also have obviously NOT attempted to cover up her 'shit'.

 

[wharfrat]

There's still no conclusive proof that SHE "hid the body." That's the problem with this whole case. If Casey had used chloroform to subdue the child and wanted it to appear she had drowned, that would have been an easier way, and much more explanable to the authorities, than hiding the body in the trunk of her car until she could figure out where to dump it.

Conclusively proving a killer hid a person's body doesn't conclusively prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

If Bob kills Bill, and Joe hides Bill, Bob still killed Bill, correct?

Only if it can be p.r.o.v.e.n (somehow???) that Bob did kill Bill. Bob may have helped hide the body, but may not have actually pulled the trigger. Criminal trials are full of such cases where it cannot be proven who actually inflicted the fatal wound, and unfortunately, the jails are also full of possibly innocent people because juries believed one witness (or evidence) over another. Although our system of jurisprudence is probably the best in the world, it still isn't flawless where a blanket statement can be made, and arbitrarily accepted as truth, that someone is guilty or not.

Actually, I went back and read the autopsy report, and even Dr. G made the ambiguous conclusion: HOMICIDE BY UNDETERMINED MEANS. Yet the prosecution's entire case rests on Casey's philandering history and her lies (which is the only p.r.o.o.f they have for motive), that she killed her daughter with chloroform (no p.r.o.o.f of chloroform except in "trace" amounts on the car carpet sample), and that she did it by using duct tape to cover her mouth and finish the job (the piece of duct tape found was never p.r.o.v.e.n to be "over her mouth").

I didn't use "Bob" as Casey; I was simply pointing out exactly what I said; that hiding a body does not show premeditation, intent, etc.... Proof of such goes to no element of first-degree murder, so why should the State have to show such?

You claim that the prosecution did not "prove" several things, which I assume in your mind would convince you of Ms. Anthony's guilt. First you state the prosecution did not prove Casey killed her daughter with chloroform. Then, in parentheses, you state that the prosecution offered no proof of chloroform. Then, you state that the prosecution offered evidence of proof of chloroform in the trunk. Which is it; did the prosecution not offer proof, or did they? Or is it that the "trace" amount evidence offered by the prosecution (which, according to the prosecution's expert testimony on such indicated it was much more than "trace") is simply not sufficient to prove Casey used chloroform on Caylee in one fashion or the other?

I suspect that you simply have a hard time finding a person guilty based on circumstantial evidence. If that is how you feel, so be it. However, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, according to case law, is to be given the same weight by the jury in making findings of fact.

 

[WillowTree]

Only if it can be p.r.o.v.e.n (somehow???) that Bob did kill Bill. Bob may have helped hide the body, but may not have actually pulled the trigger. Criminal trials are full of such cases where it cannot be proven who actually inflicted the fatal wound, and unfortunately, the jails are also full of possibly innocent people because juries believed one witness (or evidence) over another. Although our system of jurisprudence is probably the best in the world, it still isn't flawless where a blanket statement can be made, and arbitrarily accepted as truth, that someone is guilty or not.

Actually, I went back and read the autopsy report, and even Dr. G made the ambiguous conclusion: HOMICIDE BY UNDETERMINED MEANS. Yet the prosecution's entire case rests on Casey's philandering history and her lies (which is the only p.r.o.o.f they have for motive), that she killed her daughter with chloroform (no p.r.o.o.f of chloroform except in "trace" amounts on the car carpet sample), and that she did it by using duct tape to cover her mouth and finish the job (the piece of duct tape found was never p.r.o.v.e.n to be "over her mouth").

That bitch needs to go to jail for the rest of her life just because she didn't report her child missing for 31 days. Then when her mom did report it and report the "smell of DEATH" in her car she lied to the police at every opportunity. She's lucky I'm not on that jury. but I'm betting most of em think the same way I do. If Missy was innocent then she wouldn't have tried to cover up her shit.

What are your words saying about the state of your own heart??? OMG how I only hope to say the things I could for myself deal with the consequences of. What position has life put you in, dear poster, that you are so far elevated from this particular 'girl's' situation? Do you have children? Are you married? Do you live with YOUR pa*rents? How old are you? SHE lied because of many factors, if you don't understand those factors it may be wiser if you don't criticize her actions.

AND if 'Missy' had been the product of a system other than that by all nature is obviously as deceptive as hell the 'Missy' would have also have obviously NOT attempted to cover up her 'shit'.

Unmigitated, unpasturized, pure, 100% Bullshit.

 

[wharfrat]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

 

[Sunshine]

Conclusively proving a killer hid a person's body doesn't conclusively prove any of the elements of first-degree murder.

If Bob kills Bill, and Joe hides Bill, Bob still killed Bill, correct?

Only if it can be p.r.o.v.e.n (somehow???) that Bob did kill Bill. Bob may have helped hide the body, but may not have actually pulled the trigger. Criminal trials are full of such cases where it cannot be proven who actually inflicted the fatal wound, and unfortunately, the jails are also full of possibly innocent people because juries believed one witness (or evidence) over another. Although our system of jurisprudence is probably the best in the world, it still isn't flawless where a blanket statement can be made, and arbitrarily accepted as truth, that someone is guilty or not.

Actually, I went back and read the autopsy report, and even Dr. G made the ambiguous conclusion: HOMICIDE BY UNDETERMINED MEANS. Yet the prosecution's entire case rests on Casey's philandering history and her lies (which is the only p.r.o.o.f they have for motive), that she killed her daughter with chloroform (no p.r.o.o.f of chloroform except in "trace" amounts on the car carpet sample), and that she did it by using duct tape to cover her mouth and finish the job (the piece of duct tape found was never p.r.o.v.e.n to be "over her mouth").

That bitch needs to go to jail for the rest of her life just because she didn't report her child missing for 31 days. Then when her mom did report it and report the "smell of DEATH" in her car she lied to the police at every opportunity. She's lucky I'm not on that jury. but I'm betting most of em think the same way I do. If Missy was innocent then she wouldn't have tried to cover up her shit.

Not everyone in the universe is as stable and well adjusted as you, my dear! LOL.

People do many bizarre things when they panic. Then, when they are rational again, they realize that what they did during their panic has put them in the way of great harm. So, they begin to try, by rational means, to cover what they did in a panic, and it doesn't work.

AND...FWIW, there is no way someone can say a person was murdered if the cause of death is unknown.

 

[R.D.]

Then how to explain George Anthony's claim that he saw Casey leave with Caylee sometime in the morning of July 16th with backpacks before he left for work around 12:30? Who is LE and why would "LE" be trying to help find Caylee at that point?

See these are just a few of the timeframe questions that the bumbling defense should have pursued further and tied together. Now it all just hangs out there unanswered.

That was June.

Maggie just come clean and admit you have no clue

Then my mistake only exacerbates the timeframe problem. Allegedly Casey had been searching chloroform during the week of March 17 (the presumption by prosecution that she planned it all 3 months in advance), so if Casey killed her on or about June 16, why would she wait until the following month to delete all the incriminating evidence from the computer?

Because she was busted

 

[wharfrat]

AND...FWIW, there is no way someone can say a person was murdered if the cause of death is unknown.

I suppose Laci Peterson wasn't murdered then? She just fell off a boat and was decapitated I suppose. Robert Pickton didn't kill any Vancouver prostitutes, even though numerous bone fragments of these women were found on his pig farm? The young mens' remains found on Herb Baumeister's property simply laid down and died there?

I guess reasonable inference has no place in the American justice system...

 

[R.D.]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

I know I am in the minority on this one but I don't think the family was that dysfunctional, all families are to a degree. ICA is one sick bitch they all had to deal with

"Every family is a dictatorship ruled over by its sickest member"...ICA is the Anthony's sickest member

 

[Iridescence]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

OMG THANK YOU! NO it absolutely IS NOT a FREE LICENSE.

However... defining wrong from right is up to more than an individual, obviously, in ANY case. NOW, to what advantage do PURITANICAL living and their BELOVED belief system stand for Americans?

Don't TREAD on my GOD, indeed.... Fore I may only be a mere individual representing such. Define and Redefine Him accordingly to whatever route ONE needs to take to get to HIM, but do NOT deny Him.

 

[wharfrat]

1melissa3, I totally agree with you that the Anthony family "dynamic" (for lack of better wording) was truly dysfunctional and certainly contributed to Casey Anthony's mental health. It is truly tragic.

However, in my opinion, mental instability does not give one free license to act in whatever manner they choose. In this particular instance, mental illness would only be applicable if it was shown that Ms. Anthony was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Apparently she does, or her defense failed to raise the issue as an affirmative defense.

OMG THANK YOU! NO it absolutely IS NOT a FREE LICENSE.

However... defining wrong from right is up to more than an individual, obviously, in ANY case. NOW, to what advantage do PURITANICAL living and their BELOVED belief system stand for Americans?

Don't TREAD on my GOD, indeed.... Fore I may only be a mere individual representing such. Define and Redefine Him accordingly to whatever route ONE needs to take to get to HIM, but do NOT deny Him.

OK, now we disagree

ETA: I simply mean you lost me at "puritanical"