Casey Anthony

[R.D.]

82 google searches on her computer for chloroform
Duct tape wrapped her head while alive or just after death, (to me indicates she was still thought alive)
Lying for years about a nanny (where was Caylee all those times?)

To me it's been established

But there is no proof that ICA conducted those searches.

ETA: Additionally, nanny and duct tape are after the fact, don't see this as premeditation.

ETA: or is this a possession is 9/10th of the law?

ETA: interesting state position re: premeditation.

No, the Nanny was made up in 2006 and the duct tape may have been put on after the death, but that cannot be established.

My question is if it was place on her when someone thought she was dead, why wrap the head? It was done in a manner that she would not be able to remove it on her own. It was never coming off her alive

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

82 google searches on her computer for chloroform
Duct tape wrapped her head while alive or just after death, (to me indicates she was still thought alive)
Lying for years about a nanny (where was Caylee all those times?)

To me it's been established

But there is no proof that ICA conducted those searches.

ETA: Additionally, nanny and duct tape are after the fact, don't see this as premeditation.

ETA: or is this a possession is 9/10th of the law?

ETA: interesting state position re: premeditation.

No, the Nanny was made up in 2006 and the duct tape may have been put on after the death, but that cannot be established.

My question is if it was place on her when someone thought she was dead, why wrap the head? It was done in a manner that she would not be able to remove it on her own. It was never coming off her alive

Let me state upfront that i am in no way asserting ICA innocence, only that there is a difference between appearing guilty and the state proving its case. I am looking for all the holes, if it were.

During the acquittal rebuttal, the defense stated that there "...was no wrapping of the duct tape..."

 

[R.D.]

But there is no proof that ICA conducted those searches.

ETA: Additionally, nanny and duct tape are after the fact, don't see this as premeditation.

ETA: or is this a possession is 9/10th of the law?

ETA: interesting state position re: premeditation.

No, the Nanny was made up in 2006 and the duct tape may have been put on after the death, but that cannot be established.

My question is if it was place on her when someone thought she was dead, why wrap the head? It was done in a manner that she would not be able to remove it on her own. It was never coming off her alive

Let me state upfront that i am in no way asserting ICA innocence, only that there is a difference between appearing guilty and the state proving its case. I am looking for all the holes, if it were.

During the acquittal rebuttal, the defense stated that there "...was no wrapping of the duct tape..."

I understand.

Cheney says there is no evidence when or how she died. - d'oh thats their whole defense is how and when.

Autopsy Report, Page 3
Dr's. Ulz and Shultz (snip)
A hair mat was noted at the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas...
Dr. G (snip)
Based on the position of the tape and the mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt at the base of the skull

I don't think they are lying.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Defense request for acquittal judgement denied. On to ACT II.

 

[R.D.]

Defense request for acquittal judgement denied. On to ACT II.

No surprise there.

It was just being explained on TruTV how the prosecution also contends and there is case law that premeditation does not have to be long term

One piece of tape = abuse
Then the addition a second and third piece = premeditation.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Defense request for acquittal judgement denied. On to ACT II.

No surprise there.

It was just being explained on TruTV how the prosecution also contends and there is case law that premeditation does not have to be long term

One piece of tape = abuse
Then the addition a second and third piece = premeditation.

I really appreciated how Judge Perry addressed the abuse appellate case.

 

[R.D.]

I really appreciated how Judge Perry addressed the abuse appellate case.

Yes. I really like him and the way he is running the courtroom
JudgePerrySays
The law is the law, folks.

He has helped JB so many times it is silly to think he is biased

 

[Immanuel]

I have not been watching the trial but getting snippets of news on it here as it has been a big case in Central Florida.

My impression is that the prosecution has done a terrible job in presenting their case. It seems that they have presented no evidence that directly links Casey to the murder. Even the odor in the car does not prove that she did it. The case against Casey seems much more flimsy than the case against OJ.

Whether or not you believe she is guilty, does anyone feel that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Immie

PS Sorry if this question has been asked in this thread. I have not been keeping up with the thread.

 

[R.D.]

Yes

 

[Dabs]

Yes

I concur.

 

[oldsalt]

Yes

I concur.

I do also. The PT did it's job.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm not there yet.

 

[Immanuel]

Thanks to those who have replied to my question.

I guess I will just have to wait and see.

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

I have not been watching the trial but getting snippets of news on it here as it has been a big case in Central Florida.

My impression is that the prosecution has done a terrible job in presenting their case. It seems that they have presented no evidence that directly links Casey to the murder. Even the odor in the car does not prove that she did it. The case against Casey seems much more flimsy than the case against OJ.

Whether or not you believe she is guilty, does anyone feel that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Immie

PS Sorry if this question has been asked in this thread. I have not been keeping up with the thread.

I think so, Immie. There was a lot of evidence regarding the trunk of the car. The smell especially. The sticker was a big bombshell, the same one found on the piece of duct tape was also found in Casey's drawer, connecting the body to that house.

Casey not reporting the child being gone was insane. She made up imaginary friends saying they might have taken her. She lied saying she was out looking for Caylee all the time and they had store video tapes of her out shopping all the time and usually using her friend's checkbook. She was out partying for god's sake, in bars and living it up.

That girl is circumstantially connected.

 

[Immanuel]

I have not been watching the trial but getting snippets of news on it here as it has been a big case in Central Florida.

My impression is that the prosecution has done a terrible job in presenting their case. It seems that they have presented no evidence that directly links Casey to the murder. Even the odor in the car does not prove that she did it. The case against Casey seems much more flimsy than the case against OJ.

Whether or not you believe she is guilty, does anyone feel that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Immie

PS Sorry if this question has been asked in this thread. I have not been keeping up with the thread.

I think so, Immie. There was a lot of evidence regarding the trunk of the car. The smell especially. The sticker was a big bombshell, the same one found on the piece of duct tape was also found in Casey's drawer, connecting the body to that house.

Casey not reporting the child being gone was insane. She made up imaginary friends saying they might have taken her. She lied saying she was out looking for Caylee all the time and they had store video tapes of her out shopping all the time and usually using her friend's checkbook. She was out partying for god's sake, in bars and living it up.

That girl is circumstantially connected.

From what I have been able to pick up here and there, I would say none of those things point directly to her having been the murderer. I think she did it too or at least played a part in covering up Caylee's death, but I'd say if the defense even puts in a mediocre performance she walks.

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

I have not been watching the trial but getting snippets of news on it here as it has been a big case in Central Florida.

My impression is that the prosecution has done a terrible job in presenting their case. It seems that they have presented no evidence that directly links Casey to the murder. Even the odor in the car does not prove that she did it. The case against Casey seems much more flimsy than the case against OJ.

Whether or not you believe she is guilty, does anyone feel that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Immie

PS Sorry if this question has been asked in this thread. I have not been keeping up with the thread.

I think so, Immie. There was a lot of evidence regarding the trunk of the car. The smell especially. The sticker was a big bombshell, the same one found on the piece of duct tape was also found in Casey's drawer, connecting the body to that house.

Casey not reporting the child being gone was insane. She made up imaginary friends saying they might have taken her. She lied saying she was out looking for Caylee all the time and they had store video tapes of her out shopping all the time and usually using her friend's checkbook. She was out partying for god's sake, in bars and living it up.

That girl is circumstantially connected.

From what I have been able to pick up here and there, I would say none of those things point directly to her having been the murderer. I think she did it too or at least played a part in covering up Caylee's death, but I'd say if the defense even puts in a mediocre performance she walks.

Immie

The evidence is compelling. The computer held search terms like chloroform, neck breaking, head trauma, ruptured spleen.. This, combined with all of her other antics are quite believable. The prosecution team was solid even though they didn't produce proof she killed her daughter.

She won't walk in any case.

 

[Immanuel]

I think so, Immie. There was a lot of evidence regarding the trunk of the car. The smell especially. The sticker was a big bombshell, the same one found on the piece of duct tape was also found in Casey's drawer, connecting the body to that house.

Casey not reporting the child being gone was insane. She made up imaginary friends saying they might have taken her. She lied saying she was out looking for Caylee all the time and they had store video tapes of her out shopping all the time and usually using her friend's checkbook. She was out partying for god's sake, in bars and living it up.

That girl is circumstantially connected.

From what I have been able to pick up here and there, I would say none of those things point directly to her having been the murderer. I think she did it too or at least played a part in covering up Caylee's death, but I'd say if the defense even puts in a mediocre performance she walks.

Immie

The evidence is compelling. The computer held search terms like chloroform, neck breaking, head trauma, ruptured spleen.. This, combined with all of her other antics are quite believable. The prosecution team was solid even though they didn't produce proof she killed her daughter.

She won't walk in any case.

Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what they MUST do to convict?

The evidence that Caylee was murdered is solid, but you say right here that the Prosecution Team has not produced proof that Casey killed her daughter. That is what Casey is on trial for. If the Prosecution Team has not produced proof that Casey killed her daughter then Casey must without a doubt be found not guilty.

Jurors cannot decide based upon their gut feelings. By your own words, you agree with me and if that is the case you would be required to vote not guilty. At least that is how I understand our laws.

Immie

 

[Dabs]

I have not been watching the trial but getting snippets of news on it here as it has been a big case in Central Florida.

My impression is that the prosecution has done a terrible job in presenting their case. It seems that they have presented no evidence that directly links Casey to the murder. Even the odor in the car does not prove that she did it. The case against Casey seems much more flimsy than the case against OJ.

Whether or not you believe she is guilty, does anyone feel that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Immie

PS Sorry if this question has been asked in this thread. I have not been keeping up with the thread.

I think so, Immie. There was a lot of evidence regarding the trunk of the car. The smell especially. The sticker was a big bombshell, the same one found on the piece of duct tape was also found in Casey's drawer, connecting the body to that house.

Casey not reporting the child being gone was insane. She made up imaginary friends saying they might have taken her. She lied saying she was out looking for Caylee all the time and they had store video tapes of her out shopping all the time and usually using her friend's checkbook. She was out partying for god's sake, in bars and living it up.

That girl is circumstantially connected.

From what I have been able to pick up here and there, I would say none of those things point directly to her having been the murderer. I think she did it too or at least played a part in covering up Caylee's death, but I'd say if the defense even puts in a mediocre performance she walks.

Immie

I believe the only place she'll be walking to, is a prison cell. I don't see how it's possible to find her not guilty. Every single piece of everything that was brought forth, leads straight back to Casey.
The red heart sticker over the mouth...come on...that alone speaks volumes!

 

[Immanuel]

I think so, Immie. There was a lot of evidence regarding the trunk of the car. The smell especially. The sticker was a big bombshell, the same one found on the piece of duct tape was also found in Casey's drawer, connecting the body to that house.

Casey not reporting the child being gone was insane. She made up imaginary friends saying they might have taken her. She lied saying she was out looking for Caylee all the time and they had store video tapes of her out shopping all the time and usually using her friend's checkbook. She was out partying for god's sake, in bars and living it up.

That girl is circumstantially connected.

From what I have been able to pick up here and there, I would say none of those things point directly to her having been the murderer. I think she did it too or at least played a part in covering up Caylee's death, but I'd say if the defense even puts in a mediocre performance she walks.

Immie

I believe the only place she'll be walking to, is a prison cell. I don't see how it's possible to find her not guilty. Every single piece of everything that was brought forth, leads straight back to Casey.
The red heart sticker over the mouth...come on...that alone speaks volumes!

How does the red heart sticker prove that Casey killed Caylee.

A good defense lawyer can place enough doubt in the hearts of the jury that the sticker could have been placed their by any number of people including either one of the grandparents.

How does the red heart sticker prove that Caylee did not drown in the pool? Casey could have pulled Caylee out of the pool and put the sticker over her mouth after she was dead... now how they explain the duct tape and the sticker and the idea that she drowned in the pool is something a little more touchy, but it does not definitively point back to Casey in either case.

Note: I'm only raising questions. It seems to me that the circumstantial evidence can all be explained away which will allow Casey to walk the way I see it. I'm not saying Casey did not kill Caylee, but all the defense needs to do is convince the jury that someone else may have killed Caylee and Casey walks.

Immie

 

[oldsalt]

It seems some don't think a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence........