Casey Anthony

[MaggieMae]

Guilty of premeditated murder.

Guilty of aggravated child abuse, making premeditation moot.

That's my prediction, too. But it still will be appealed.

 

[wharfrat]

Guilty of premeditated murder.

Guilty of aggravated child abuse, making premeditation moot.

That's my prediction, too. But it still will be appealed.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what specifically would be the most effective grounds for appeal, in your mind?

 

[MaggieMae]

Guilty of aggravated child abuse, making premeditation moot.

That's my prediction, too. But it still will be appealed.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what specifically would be the most effective grounds for appeal, in your mind?

That the state didn't prove its case that Casey was responsible; that it relied too heavily ONLY on evidence that would point directly at her because it was known that she had tried to cover up the incident. Law enforcement didn't pursue any other possibilities because of that, specifically, was the coverup her idea alone? If Casey did act alone, she managed to outwit every top investigative and forensic authority who attempted to find clear evidence, and could not. Too many loose ends, like the fact that they automatically took at face value what every other person involved in the case had to say regarding Casey, and looked the other way when they should have at least explored the possibility that she did not act alone.

I also think there are grounds for not receiving a fair trial, based not only on Baez's failure to doggedly pursue some of those loose ends in spite of the judge's constant refusal to allow him to move further on specific points, but because the prosecution was allowed over and over again to violate the very rules that the defense got smacked down for. Sending the jury out of the room when some of that went down never should have happened. They should have been privy to the shenanigans that went on while they were sequestered.

 

[Liberty]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0]YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏[/ame]

 

[Liberty]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0]YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏[/ame]

 

[Grace]

Guilty. But no death penalty. Give her 25 or 30 years. No chance of early release.

 

[wharfrat]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏

And yet, here you are, double-posting on a thread about that which you don't care about. Here's an idea; if you don't care about it, don't post on a thread clearly about the subject you protest about.

 

[Rinata]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏

Who cares about the murder of a 2 year old child????? You're an idiot.

 

[Liberty]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏

Who cares about the murder of a 2 year old child????? You're an idiot.

murder happens ALL THE TIME. watch AMW. why is this one so special?

 

[oldsalt]

Trial by a jury of your peers, in my opinion, would work a lot better if those jurors were professional jurors. It certainly would in medical malpractice, product liability, and workers' compensation cases. Jurors simply have a hard time tying the importance of evidence to relevant elements of legal concepts. And as science progresses, this will become a greater and greater problem, in my opinion.

That is EXACTLY what the system is designed to prevent.

I may or may not have been trying to ruffle some feathers

ETA: arguing whether the State proved first degree murder was becoming stagnant

Ya got me! Good on ya.

 

[oldsalt]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏

Who cares about the murder of a 2 year old child????? You're an idiot.

murder happens ALL THE TIME. watch AMW. why is this one so special?

It's not. It's been sensationalized.

 

[freedombecki]

If the jury was fooled into thinking DNA proof of murder is required in every case, our society will have killers running willy nilly in every city. I think Ms. Anthony killed her daughter, and I don't believe the skull buzz-saw forensics advocate had a leg to stand on after the soft-stated anthropologist pointed out that a dentist's mirror inserted into the child's foramen magnum was adequate to detect any injury to the skull, whereas sawing the skull in half would indeed inflict or obfuscate injury and was thus not acceptable in his or his peers' practice. Destroying evidence is what skull-sawing does, and modern forensics does not generally practice that antiquated shibboleth. I hope the jury is able to sort that out and set aside Dr. Sawbones' critiques of those who do not do his brand of evidence destruction. It's sad to see one alleged forensics expert take a piss on others who don't engage in his own deleterious practices.

But that isn't what's important here. The jury can't tell much from anything that was presented, including the loss of the little heart found stuck on the duct tape covering Caylee's little mouth. Perhaps a good lawyer would use it as an opportunity to grandstand against bad forensics practice, although conventional testing for DNA on the heart destroyed it.

The jury has only its gut to go on about the peculiar human behavior of the killer mom who spent not one moment of remorse over the loss of her daughter until she was behind bars where she was forced into enough quiet time that it could have come to her attention that what she did was horrendous. her mother lied in open court about researching "chlorophyll" and may have accidentally typed in chloroform at the time of the search on the home computer when records showed her to be at work, posting patient information.

Those people's neighbors were mad, too, at being betrayed by lie after lie after lie of someone they considered regular people. They made fools of themselves by mocking and berating the family, but they didn't like what happened and were horrified further when the child's taped-and-garbage-bagged-and-disposed remains were found.

How would you like it if this creepolini got off, decided to babysit under a different name someplace else where her name was not a household word, and did a number on somebody else's toddler when it cried too much or got in her miserable way?

And to make matters worse, her mother lied on the stand in order to keep lines of communication open with this harsh, cruel woman she raised. That deserves twenty years of hard time to send a message to other dilly-brained people who'd lie for getting off a cold-blooded killer. Maybe those of you who think this should be done in a quiet, deliberate way to meet the standards of justice are superstars of prudence, and I'm not.
I'm just tired of this horrible case and the animosity it seems to bring out in some of us. Before I had to think about it, I felt calm and possessed of my faculties, too. But when I read the evidence and saw state's witnesses telling the tale of that child's woe and thought of the perverse way in which the body of that child was discarded into such an unlikely area, and a passel of lies a day, I formed an opinion of the liar that was not favorable to her case.

So, pardon my sardonic attitude, but I am given to pity children who are maltreated by their parents. A lot of that goes around in the world, and that grieves me more.

So if YOU were accused of a horrific crime, you would want an emotional and over reactive jury. Got it. Discard any exculpatory evidence in your case, make sure you get what some emotional rattle brain thinks you should have.

Bottom line, they don't know how she died, and therefore they don't know if it was murder or not.

The coroner certainly did. She ruled the death a homicide.

This case is absolutely, positively, and irrevocably not about me.

Do you always applaud your own propensity toward fiction? I recommend against it.

 

[freedombecki]

this is what i have to say about this WHOLE THING:

YouTube - ‪OMG WHO THE HELL CARES!‬‏

I care.

 

[Sunshine]

If the jury was fooled into thinking DNA proof of murder is required in every case, our society will have killers running willy nilly in every city. I think Ms. Anthony killed her daughter, and I don't believe the skull buzz-saw forensics advocate had a leg to stand on after the soft-stated anthropologist pointed out that a dentist's mirror inserted into the child's foramen magnum was adequate to detect any injury to the skull, whereas sawing the skull in half would indeed inflict or obfuscate injury and was thus not acceptable in his or his peers' practice. Destroying evidence is what skull-sawing does, and modern forensics does not generally practice that antiquated shibboleth. I hope the jury is able to sort that out and set aside Dr. Sawbones' critiques of those who do not do his brand of evidence destruction. It's sad to see one alleged forensics expert take a piss on others who don't engage in his own deleterious practices.

But that isn't what's important here. The jury can't tell much from anything that was presented, including the loss of the little heart found stuck on the duct tape covering Caylee's little mouth. Perhaps a good lawyer would use it as an opportunity to grandstand against bad forensics practice, although conventional testing for DNA on the heart destroyed it.

The jury has only its gut to go on about the peculiar human behavior of the killer mom who spent not one moment of remorse over the loss of her daughter until she was behind bars where she was forced into enough quiet time that it could have come to her attention that what she did was horrendous. her mother lied in open court about researching "chlorophyll" and may have accidentally typed in chloroform at the time of the search on the home computer when records showed her to be at work, posting patient information.

Those people's neighbors were mad, too, at being betrayed by lie after lie after lie of someone they considered regular people. They made fools of themselves by mocking and berating the family, but they didn't like what happened and were horrified further when the child's taped-and-garbage-bagged-and-disposed remains were found.

How would you like it if this creepolini got off, decided to babysit under a different name someplace else where her name was not a household word, and did a number on somebody else's toddler when it cried too much or got in her miserable way?

And to make matters worse, her mother lied on the stand in order to keep lines of communication open with this harsh, cruel woman she raised. That deserves twenty years of hard time to send a message to other dilly-brained people who'd lie for getting off a cold-blooded killer. Maybe those of you who think this should be done in a quiet, deliberate way to meet the standards of justice are superstars of prudence, and I'm not.
I'm just tired of this horrible case and the animosity it seems to bring out in some of us. Before I had to think about it, I felt calm and possessed of my faculties, too. But when I read the evidence and saw state's witnesses telling the tale of that child's woe and thought of the perverse way in which the body of that child was discarded into such an unlikely area, and a passel of lies a day, I formed an opinion of the liar that was not favorable to her case.

So, pardon my sardonic attitude, but I am given to pity children who are maltreated by their parents. A lot of that goes around in the world, and that grieves me more.

So if YOU were accused of a horrific crime, you would want an emotional and over reactive jury. Got it. Discard any exculpatory evidence in your case, make sure you get what some emotional rattle brain thinks you should have.

Bottom line, they don't know how she died, and therefore they don't know if it was murder or not.

The coroner certainly did. She ruled the death a homicide.

This case is absolutely, positively, and irrevocably not about me.

Do you always applaud your own propensity toward fiction? I recommend against it.

And the coroner got the cart before the horse.

 

[freedombecki]

So if YOU were accused of a horrific crime, you would want an emotional and over reactive jury. Got it. Discard any exculpatory evidence in your case, make sure you get what some emotional rattle brain thinks you should have.

Bottom line, they don't know how she died, and therefore they don't know if it was murder or not.

The coroner certainly did. She ruled the death a homicide.

This case is absolutely, positively, and irrevocably not about me.

Do you always applaud your own propensity toward fiction? I recommend against it.

And the coroner got the cart before the horse.

Link to her disciplinary hearing, please.

 

[Sunshine]

The coroner certainly did. She ruled the death a homicide.

This case is absolutely, positively, and irrevocably not about me.

Do you always applaud your own propensity toward fiction? I recommend against it.

And the coroner got the cart before the horse.

Link to her disciplinary hearing, please.

 

[freedombecki]

Is she guilty in your opinion?

I think she is guilty. I think that Caylee died of asphyxiation when her mother placed three pieces of tape and a little heart over her mouth and nose after researching online how to euthanize and kill, and I think the jury will agree it was premeditated murder. If one of the jurors holds out for awhile, I think the other jurors will prove to him or her the error of her or his thinking and their duty-bound role to give a truthful verdict. of guilty of murder in the first degree.

They may opt to recommend life without the possibility of parole if they have to compromise with the holdout. OTOH, the jury may decide that the method of funeral was so horrible the perpetrator will get death. I do not know what the jury will decide, but my guess is the premeditation factor in this case will result in an accurate decision to call it first degree and not second degree murder.

 

[tinydancer]

Because of a truly insane situation up here, where the doc thought he was a rock star and was proclaiming parents and relatives guilty of murder on a continual basis AND getting convictions based on ludicrous and crazy testimony, I've been very very cautious in coming to any conclusion in the Anthony case.

But I cannot come up with any other outcome than this mother having killed her child. Heavy heart to conclude this, but I can't come up with any other verdict from what information I have seen published.

 

[tinydancer]

whoopsies that was a double post. apologies.

Here's the link though to the psycho pathologist I was talking about. This man because of wanting to be a rock star got people incarcerated for years because of his testimony. Parents falsely accused of murdering their children. I don't think any punishment can be too great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I only watched it yesterday and some this morning.
She is guilty. Premeditated? - Don't know, and no one will ever know.
Her behavior after the death is just mind blowing.

My personal opinion on what happened...

She had intent to kill her daughter at some point in time, and even went so far as to acquire chlorophyll. But did not fully commit to the crime....thus why she had no plan to deal with the body and no plans on how she was going to create the "story".
One night for whatever reason, maybe she was drunk, maybe she had a fight with her boyfriend - whatever - she went through with it - she murdered her child. However, it was done by impulse, she never developed a plan...she panicked. She put the body in her car to buy some time, after several days she still had no plan that she could think of that would explain why she had not told anyone Caylee was missing for now several days.
Then the car began to smell, she simply did not know what to do with the body - aware of the ability of modern forensics - she panics again and simply tosses the body in a swampy area not very deep in the woods.
At this point it gets bizarre. Maybe the memory of murdering her daughter was catching up to her...maybe she wasn't sleeping - whatever - she just flat out was trying to pretend nothing happened. Started making up wild stories that changed from one day to the next to her family who was beginning to worry. It got worse and worse for her as her mother and father began calling multiple times a day "where is Kaylee, where is Kaylee"...and finally at the point she simply had absolutely no way to explain where Kaylee is - she makes up yet another bizarre story that her daughter has been missing for a month and she is "investigating it on her own".
And that is the most unbelievable thing in this entire case - that her final story is she did not call one single person when her daughter went missing. Did not tell anyone at all. Not even resembling something believable.

She killed her daughter.