Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder, guilty of lying to police

• dwccrew

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822361 wrote:"This isn't normal behavior, but Casey Anthony is not normal and clearly has mental issues. "
  
  I agree, but why lie to the cops? What did they have to gain by lying about an accidental death that could result (well, did result) in a disastrous court situation?

  
  Strictly my opinion, I think once the lies spiraled out of control, they just stuck with it. I believe her to be an undiagnosed pathological liar. Dr. Drew even stated that with how elaborate her lies are, you have to assume she believes them. There is tons of evidence of this even before Caylee died. She lied about who the father was (told her former fiancee he was the father, then made up 2 other names), she made up fake friends, etc.
  
  Ultimately her lies POSSIBLY set her free.
• enigmaax

  dwccrew;822358 wrote: I have always maintained that Casey found her daughter dead and panicked, tried to dispose of the body and went on with her life.

  I think she played a role in the death, though not intentionally. Maybe chloroform was used, to make her go to sleep. Maybe she put the duct tape over her mouth as some stupid punishment or just because she was annoyed. Hell, maybe she put her in the trunk because she didn't want some dude to know she had a kid. And it killed her. And would that have been manslaughter or murder or something else? Maybe she drowned because no one was watching and knowing there'd be some kind of trouble, Casey (and her Dad) decided to try and make it look like a kidnapping/murder....she just executed that plan really poorly. I could draw all of these conclusions based on there being a body and a crazy, slutty mom. And none of the prosecution's evidence either proves or disproves any of it any more than they did their own theory.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  dwccrew;822366 wrote:Strictly my opinion, I think once the lies spiraled out of control, they just stuck with it. I believe her to be an undiagnosed pathological liar. Dr. Drew even stated that with how elaborate her lies are, you have to assume she believes them. There is tons of evidence of this even before Caylee died. She lied about who the father was (told her former fiancee he was the father, then made up 2 other names), she made up fake friends, etc.
  
  Ultimately her lies POSSIBLY set her free.

  I agree with all of this.
• dwccrew

  

  enigmaax;822367 wrote:I think she played a role in the death, though not intentionally. Maybe chloroform was used, to make her go to sleep. Maybe she put the duct tape over her mouth as some stupid punishment or just because she was annoyed. Hell, maybe she put her in the trunk because she didn't want some dude to know she had a kid. And it killed her. And would that have been manslaughter or murder or something else? Maybe she drowned because no one was watching and knowing there'd be some kind of trouble, Casey (and her Dad) decided to try and make it look like a kidnapping/murder....she just executed that plan really poorly. I could draw all of these conclusions based on there being a body and a crazy, slutty mom. And none of the prosecution's evidence either proves or disproves any of it any more than they did their own theory.

  I agree with this. I don't think she intentionally killed Caylee, but I think it is likely that some actions she took (or inaction) caused Caylee's death. She panicked knowing she'd be in trouble and tried to cover it up. I think if the prosecution went after a lesser charge, manslaughter or something along those lines, they would have had a better chance of a conviction. But murder one is just not going to fly in this situation.
• sherm03

  

  Side note...
  If you had "hours after acquittal" in the How Long Until She gets an Offer to Do Porn Pool...you are a winner.
  
  http://nation.foxnews.com/casey-anthony/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-fields-porn-offer
• Heretic

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822162 wrote:Interesting comments, most of my legal friends think the prosecution did an ok job (note, I've barely followed the case) and were a bit surprised, but not shocked at the verdict.

  
  Man, I also barely followed the case and all I feel educated enough to comment on is that I'd do her. As opposed to posting that I'm sure she killed the kid and arguing against any potential reason the jury didn't feel the proof was sufficient.
• Fab1b

  

  So do people feel this verdict is worse or OJ's? IMO OJ's. He killed two in brutal fashion with more than just circumstantional evidence like blood every where, the shoe prints, bloody clothes, cut hand, white bronco chase, "If I Did It" (LOL). What say you?
• Gardens35

  OJ's here.
• 4cards

  

  ...I hope she makes a roadie back up to Ohio to party REAL SOON. I guarantee that if they do find here in a field near Ytown with duct tape on her mouth and stuffed in a trash bag, NO ONE would EVER be tried.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Heretic;822400 wrote:Man, I also barely followed the case and all I feel educated enough to comment on is that I'd do her.

  I'd do her.... If she was drunk and passed out and no body was lookin......
• Sykotyk

  

  For all those arguing that there was reasonable doubt....
  
  What's reasonable about a mother not reporting that her child was missing for over a month? What's reasonable about her not even searching for the child herself in lieu of contacting police? What's reasonable with someone searching for chloroform online around the time of her death that due to lack of evidence in the remains due to the length of time passing before the body was found was killed in some manner by her STOPPED being able to breath? What's reasonable about her lying to people about where her child is, including to her mother who was the one to report her missing.
  
  Sure, it's circumstantial evidence. If you can't convict with a mountain of circumstantial evidence, killers just need to make sure they're a) not videotaped, and b) decompose the body enough so that physical evidence of the murder would be covered up. No justice for those that do their homework.
  
  If the daughter argues that her father really did it (or that it was an accident) she still has to NOTIFY SOMEONE of the accident. There's a REASON you're required to notify the authorities of ANY death of ANYONE. To immediately verify there was no foul play involved. Attempting to cover it up immediately implies guilt. Why else would you cover it up?
  
  It's the blago indictment. It doesn't matter whether he sold the senate seat or not, the simple act of soliciting the seat is enough to make him guilty. Insomuch as it's not whether she really cold-blooded murdered her daughter, it's the fact she went to apparent great lengths to cover up the death. Is it reasonable to think that innocent people cover up their children's death?
• Fab1b

  

  Sykotyk I don't think many people including myself think she is innocent or wasn't involved in some manner in her child's death or actions there after. The problem is with no cause of death and no way to determine how the body got to it's final resting place, how can you convict for those actions? She lied to law enforcement no doubt and was found guilty, I was pretty sure she would be found guilty of the neglect charges (that shocked me) as I believe neglect from her not being honest about her daughter's whereabouts led to more harm to the girl, possibly we don't know that becuase we don't know for sure when the child actually died. Based on the prosecution's case I stand by my opinion that the jury did the right thing, even if people hate it and know she did it, the jury did the right thing. I know myself if I was charged with something I damn sure wouldn't want the jury to convict me because they "think" I did it or it "appears" I did it!
• sherm03

  

  Sykotyk;822544 wrote: If the daughter argues that her father really did it (or that it was an accident) she still has to NOTIFY SOMEONE of the accident. There's a REASON you're required to notify the authorities of ANY death of ANYONE. To immediately verify there was no foul play involved. Attempting to cover it up immediately implies guilt. Why else would you cover it up?
  
  It's the blago indictment. It doesn't matter whether he sold the senate seat or not, the simple act of soliciting the seat is enough to make him guilty. Insomuch as it's not whether she really cold-blooded murdered her daughter, it's the fact she went to apparent great lengths to cover up the death. Is it reasonable to think that innocent people cover up their children's death?

  Fab1b;822548 wrote:I was pretty sure she would be found guilty of the neglect charges (that shocked me) as I believe neglect from her not being honest about her daughter's whereabouts led to more harm to the girl, possibly we don't know that becuase we don't know for sure when the child actually died.

  
  There were no neglect charges brought. The three main charges were Murder 1, Aggravated Child Abuse, and Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child.
  
  It's not crazy to think that the kid drowned in the pool and Casey panicked. She grabbed the duct tape, put it on the kid's mouth to make it look like a murder, and then she dumped the body and hoped to blame everything on the "nanny" because she knew the person never existed. That is incredibly dumb on her part, but does not constitute a conviction of any of those charges present. Had they charged her with wrongful disposal of a corpse, then you would be on to something. But she was not charged with anything even remotely close to that. So she should be charged with murder because she's an idiot and panicked?
• enigmaax

  Sykotyk;822544 wrote:It's the blago indictment. It doesn't matter whether he sold the senate seat or not, the simple act of soliciting the seat is enough to make him guilty. Insomuch as it's not whether she really cold-blooded murdered her daughter, it's the fact she went to apparent great lengths to cover up the death. Is it reasonable to think that innocent people cover up their children's death?

  
  Did you watch the trial at all? Even though it is getting old, I'd be glad to talk about why none of your points equate to a murder conviction. But if you're just going with the popular opinion because you heard other people were outraged or because you just assumed guilty from the beginning it is pointless.
  
  Aside from that, your statement that I did quote is not even close to being valid. In your example, soliciting the seat made him guilty of ...... soliciting the seat. It didn't make him guilty taking a bribe or tax evasion. "Covering up a crime" does not make you guilty of murder. Those are two completely different things.
• tk421

  

  I don't know if anyone has posted this already, if so, sorry. Someone started a petition for Caylee's Law, which would make it a felony offense for parents/guardians who do not notify LE of a missing child in a timely manner. It's already got almost 140K signatures in about a day, I think. What do you all think?
  
  http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law
• sherm03

  

  tk421;822722 wrote:I don't know if anyone has posted this already, if so, sorry. Someone started a petition for Caylee's Law, which would make it a felony offense for parents/guardians who do not notify LE of a missing child in a timely manner. It's already got almost 140K signatures in about a day, I think. What do you all think?
  
  http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law

  
  Seems like a good idea. But what constitutes "a timely manner?"
• tk421

  

  Don't know, but I also saw a news report about it that mentioned it probably isn't constitutional for the feds to pass such a law. It'd probably have to be done individually by the states if they wanted to. I think they mentioned something like within an hour of knowing or 24 hours for a missing child. I'm not sure.
• dwccrew

  

  ccrunner609;822692 wrote:really? They held onto that lie while their daughter sat in jail for 3 years? 3 YEARS? Went to trial for murder and could of easily spent her whole life in prison or been given the death penalty just to hold onto a few lies? Hell no. They held onto those lies cause someone killed her and they know it.

  
  this family is obviously fucked up, who knows why they do anything they do.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  dwccrew;822730 wrote:this family is obviously ****ed up, who knows why they do anything they do.

  
  Apparently the effed up-ness of the family is what set her free, there were so many lies the jury appeared confused enough that they neglected common sense.
  
  No offense meant to anyone here, but the idea that she drowned, that they staged this elaborate crime scene and played chicken with the DA's office for 3 years is so ludicrous that it goes beyond reasonable doubt, it is beyond a shadow of doubt. No one is that nuts. As I pointed out before Baez might as well said she was abducted by aliens, it would have been just as credible.
• Mulva

  

  tk421;822726 wrote:Don't know, but I also saw a news report about it that mentioned it probably isn't constitutional for the feds to pass such a law. It'd probably have to be done individually by the states if they wanted to. I think they mentioned something like within an hour of knowing or 24 hours for a missing child. I'm not sure.

  
  Don't state laws also need to be constitutional?
• BR1986FB

  
• gut

  enigmaax;822267 wrote:There were also several people who were in contact with the car who did not smell a dead body (or anything unusual). Also, George Anthony testimony changed from his original statement about the smell - which he said was trash originally.
  The chloroform searches really have nothing to do with anything - traces of chloroform were found in the car trunk, not the remains. Whether the body was ever in the trunk was not proven.
  Casey Anthony could not be placed at the scene where the body was found and the DNA on the tape wasn't hers.
  The phrase about it being an "accident that snowballed" came from a woman who testified that George Anthony said that to her a few weeks before the body was found. She said they were romantic, he denied it. She provided a text from after the body was found in which he stated, "I need you in my life." (Casey isn't the only one who appeared to have told lies.)

  Again....REASONABLE doubt. If she had nothing to do with any of this, there's no reason to lie to police, much less wait 30 days to report the girl missing. If you think she did something, even accidentally, that's manslaughter. Why is the car abandoned in the first place? These are things the defense really did absolutely nothing to offer an explanation, while the prosecution's is quite sound...but reasonable people have reasonable doubt?
• tk421

  

  Mulva;822787 wrote:Don't state laws also need to be constitutional?

  
  Here's the article.
  
  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/06/proposed-caylees-law-generates-virtual-frenzy/
  

  It calls for the creation of a new federal statute called “Caylee’s Law” – named after Anthony’s deceased daughter – that would make it a felony for parents not to report the death of a child to law enforcement within an hour of discovering the incident, or within 24 hours in the case of child disappearance.
  
  But some question the constitutionality of such a proposed law. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard, points out that criminal laws usually fall within the realm of state jurisdictions.
  
  When Congress does enact them, however, it does so under the Constitution’s commerce clause, which applies to cases that significantly impact interstate commerce. Tribe posits that the proposed “Caylee’s Law” would fail to meet that test and would not hold up at the federal level.
  
  “This is an understandable reaction to…a verdict that people feel unsatisfied with, but violating the constitution would hardly solve the problem,” Tribe told the Law Blog. “There is no basis I can see for any congressional power to deal in this broad way with all cases of injury – and perhaps fatal injury – to children.”

• gut

  sherm03;822276 wrote: The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to give the jury enough to make them think that it is reasonably possible for that scenario to happen

  
  A very common misconception. If the prosecution satisfies it's burden that you killed someone, and the defense offers "no, it was the boogeyman" or some other defense lacking any credibility the prosecution has no burden to disprove every ridiculous thing thrown out there. Well, they can't prove it WASN'T someone with magic invisibility, so then they haven't proven their case?
  
  In truth, when the prosecution connects the dots, the burden DOES shift to the defense to offer a plausible (back to the REASONABLE in reasonable doubt) explanation or alternative theory. The prosecution doesn't have to prove none of the other 6 billion people on earth killed the girl, only that CA did beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Fab1b

  

  gut;822835 wrote:Again....REASONABLE doubt. If she had nothing to do with any of this, there's no reason to lie to police, much less wait 30 days to report the girl missing. If you think she did something, even accidentally, that's manslaughter. Why is the car abandoned in the first place? These are things the defense really did absolutely nothing to offer an explanation, while the prosecution's is quite sound...but reasonable people have reasonable doubt?

  
  The defense doesn't have to prove a damn thing the prosecution does and they didn't!