Casey Anthony Verdict
Guilty only on the charges of lying to law enforcement officers. I haven't been paying much attention to the case -- just seen it in passing on the news. Your thoughts?
Evolutionary psychologist @GadSaad tweets:
Casey Anthony found not guilty. I am assuming that the killer in the OJ Simpson case is also the one who murdered the little girl.
And then there's this:
@SavannahGuthrie Max sentence for each count of lying - 1 year (she was convicted of 4 cts). Theoretically max of 4 yrs
IIRC, the prosecution took a gamble by only going for Murder 1 which had the distinct possibility of leading to the death penalty. Based on what I saw of the trial (caveat: on tv and radio, didn't watch the whole thing) I would have had a very difficult time saying that she is guilty enough - with little enough doubt - to warrant the needle.
But yes, this does seem like a case where "some Puerto Rican guy" struck again. (South Park fans will get that)
Elle at July 5, 2011 11:51 AM
Here's a thought. Scott Petersen was convicted on (arguably) less evidence and got the death penalty. I think being a young woman worked in her favor here.
If someone is caught lying to law enforcement to cover up a dead body they should be charged as guilty - for a minimum of MANSLAUGHTER (MINIMUM), maybe even second degree...otherwise, what is to prevent anyone who kills someone from doing this same thing and claiming "accident".
And besides, who accidently kills someone and then covers it up?
Speculation on my part, but I will bet that she was using the trunk of her car as her child's babysitter, and the poor child roasted to death in there. She was probably on too much of a fucking bender and ripped off her ass on drugs and didnt remember leaving her in there for only Lord knows how long.
This is just sickening.
Feebie at July 5, 2011 12:02 PM
A psychiatrist tries to make sense of the verdict - http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/05/why-casey-anthonys-verdict-makes-sense/
snakeman99 at July 5, 2011 12:02 PM
Sorry, not charged as guilty but charged with manslaughter. Automatically. As a minimum. If more evidence - then murder one...etc.
Feebie at July 5, 2011 12:04 PM
snakeman - from that article:
"Even if you despise Casey Anthony, you have to admit that the death of her daughter (if she did not kill her) would qualify as such a trauma or loss. Symptoms of mania could then ensue, including: overspending, hypersexual behavior, sleeplessness and a sense of euphoria (which would be seen in photographs as seeming joy)."
How about being a pathological fucking liar - even before the murder happened? That psychiatrist needs to have his own head examined. This may happen in situations of trauma but it is not likely to be immediate! Bahhhhh.
Feebie at July 5, 2011 12:08 PM
Remember Martha Stewart. She was found innocent of the charges they were prosecuting her for (insider trading). However, she was convicted of lying to an FBI officer while not under oath. The proof was solely the handwritten notes that the officer took during the interview; there were no witnesses or recordings. She spent years in jail for this. If this can happen to someone with the money to buy the best lawyers, what chance does the average citizen have?
The police wonder why people sometimes don't trust them. This is why: talking to the police, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
a_random_guy at July 5, 2011 12:13 PM
I've been following it loosely. She was guilty from what I heard. Just like OJ and any number of other trials, the defense found enough insane poo to fling that some of it stuck. Which is the defense's job. Also, people are loathe to send young women to prison, for reasons I don't understand.
I've never been called for jury duty. I think some force out there can sense us vindictive types and keep us off the lists.
momof4 at July 5, 2011 12:13 PM
I've never been called for jury duty. I think some force out there can sense us vindictive types and keep us off the lists.
You're right about that - both times I was called for jury duty, I didn't have to report for it. Got the notice in the mail, called the number, my name wasn't one of the ones the automated machine gave out.
Oh well.
Flynne at July 5, 2011 12:17 PM
Oh, I meant to add: prosecuting someone on charges like this is a way of evading the justice system. "We think you are guilty, even if the jury disagrees. So we are going to prosecute you for something else, something where you have no chance to defend yourself."
Maybe this woman is guilty, but the trial said otherwise and one should - indeed, must - accept that. This kind of thing makes a mockery of our justice system.
a_random_guy at July 5, 2011 12:19 PM
For the record, I think she was guilty, too, but since I wasn't there, I don't know for sure. But it seems to me, if she really loved that baby, she wouldn't have done one iota of the things she did while Casey was "missing".
Flynne at July 5, 2011 12:19 PM
I think that the whole Anthony family is so f*cked up that I wouldn't know what to believe.
Who was the little girl's father? I know Casey had a fiance at one time, but I never saw him mentioned as the Dad. I know that there were rumors that Casey's brother was the father (ick!), but that ended up being false (right?).
ahw at July 5, 2011 12:29 PM
She was guilty from what I heard.
Based on what, precisely?
You didn't follow the case closely. You didn't hear the witness testimony. You didn't see the physical evidence.
You're basing your determination of guilt on what the media told you.
I hate to break this to you, but the media tells us a lot of things that are simply not true.
In this case? I don't know what the truth is. I'm ignorant on the facts.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 5, 2011 1:33 PM
the prosecution took a gamble by only going for Murder 1
My understanding is that a manslaughter charge was also on the table, if the jury felt that the conditions for murder were not met. Apparently, there was also an aggravated child abuse charge.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 5, 2011 1:38 PM
Yes, Manslaughter was on the table; she was found not guilty of it.
ahw at July 5, 2011 1:46 PM
I could very well be wrong, Darth Aggie. It didn't take me long to get disgusted with the whole circus and stop paying close attention. About the time fistfights started breaking out in the queues for the public to get tickets to sit in live.
Elle at July 5, 2011 1:48 PM
I'm sorry. If your two year old daughter dies accidentally as was claimed, you don't hide that fact for months. There is no excuse unless you're an attorney or psychotherapist wanting to write a book and go on CNN.
The end result was exactly as expected: No matter what verdict was reached or punishment given, another innocent child is dead.
Karma will prevail.
DrCos at July 5, 2011 2:25 PM
Poor Helpless Single Victim Mommy discount...
mike at July 5, 2011 2:42 PM
As IRA Darth mentioned...
Whoever you are: No, you did not see the evidence.
Shut up.
Shut your mouth. You did not see the evidence. By definition, only the jury did. End of evidence stories.
I'm sure you know how every person in the world would react in every case like this. Several of you will say or have said so.
All sorts of people now want to set the law aside, so that they can kill or maim someone they think will pay for the little girl's death in that manner.
Even people against capital punishment will do this sort of thing - when the court doesn't do what they think should happen.
That's the difference between justice and vengeance.
Want some irony? If not for the advent of justice, many of you would have been burned as witches - by people bent on vengeance, based on what they were told by others.
People just like you.
Of course, if you're not doing this, above, then I am not talking about you. Right?
Radwaste at July 5, 2011 3:06 PM
What Mike said; she walked because she's young, female, and (somewhat) cute. There's no doubt in my mind that she did it; if I were on the jury, I don't know that I would have voted murder one, but the lesser charges would have been slam dunks. Having said that, the lying-to-investigators stuff is bullshit. Prosecutorial sour grapes.
Cousin Dave at July 5, 2011 3:09 PM
Ummm, if you watched the trial, then you saw the evidence. I watched the trial and she is guilty. Being found not guilty doesn't mean she is innocent. Any normal mother will tell you that her behavior was beyond odd. The kid dies in an accident and so her response is to through her little body into a swamp? Yeah, that screams innocent. For all of those of you defending this disgusting person, when was the last time you felt the need to put three pieces of duct tape on your child's face?
I think what got her off was the lack of DNA evidence. I think that b/c of crime shows on television, people have gotten to expect that as the standard when assessing guilt. There wasn't any here bc of the condition of the remains. The only thing you can fall back on is what is normal. As Dr. G said, normal parents call 911 after a drowning... They don't stuff the kid in a laundry sack and throw them in a swamp. This case just proves that life isn't always fair and that if you are just relying the system to help you out, you could get really lucky or you could get really screwed. Casey Anthony should get someone to buy her lottery ticket today bc she got really lucky.
Sheepmommy at July 5, 2011 3:33 PM
Look, it's very simple. They couldn't prove the child was murdered. None of the medical experts could say HOW she died. Therefore, a jury simply couldn't convict her of murder. I'm sure they're sick over it themselves - any rational person suspects she did something to that child to bring about her death, either puposeful or accidental - but the evidence just wasn't there to support murder.
It's one of those cases that really holds up the justice system's burden as being "beyond a reasonable doubt", and, as much as I despise Casey Anthony, I'm a bit heartened that the jury actually followed the law.
lovelysoul at July 5, 2011 3:35 PM
It's very simple. They couldn't prove the child was murdered. None of the medical experts could say HOW she died. Therefore, a jury simply couldn't convict her of murder. I'm sure they're sick over it themselves - any rational person suspects she did something to that child to bring about her death, either puposeful or accidental - but the evidence just wasn't there to support murder.
It's one of those cases that really holds up the justice system's burden as being "beyond a reasonable doubt", and, as much as I despise Casey Anthony, I'm a bit heartened that the jury actually followed the law.
lovelysoul at July 5, 2011 3:35 PM
I don't need to watch a trial or be on the jury to know:
1 - this woman is a pathological liar
2 - this kid is dead
3 - she did not report her child missing
4 - she covered her child's death up
Next thing you know, certain posters on here will be defending OJ too.
Apparently some people here have a hell of a lot more faith in Joe-Fucking-Jury-Public than I do.
Feebie at July 5, 2011 3:59 PM
LS - this is exactly - exactly why if you fucking cover it up, and hide the cause of death - even if it was an accident you should get manslaughter - auto-fucking-matically. Any more evidence - you get murder two/one.
Feebie at July 5, 2011 4:02 PM
Yeah, I can see that, Feebie. By her own admission, she helped cover up a "drowning." That should get a harsher punishment.
I think her defense was so bizarre. Bringing in her dad, an ex cop, as a co-conspirator and accusing him of molestation. Why didn't she just say it was an accident without suggesting her dad's involvement? That would've been more believable.
Now, she's alienated her whole family.
lovelysoul at July 5, 2011 4:29 PM
No, you saw a telecast of the evidence. If it counted at all, the jury would participate by television.
Guess what? They didn't.
Line up over here, guys: those who want the defendant to die because of what you think you saw.
I'll keep this thread and watch for you to appear in court, just in case all of a sudden you want the literal protection of the court. Wow, I bet "Joe-Fucking-Jury-Public" looks pretty good then!
And no, just like the court, you cannot prove OJ killed Nicole, so he got to walk. Because that's what the law says, not your personal opinion.
Doesn't that just burn you up that the Court didn't ask you? Aren't you just furious because you couldn't pull the trigger on him yourself?
(And aren't you ready with every argument about OJ being an ass - as if that counts - to justify killing him?)
She got to walk because of her looks? You just justified every case of profiling, every police pullover for "driving while black". You think that appearance determines guilt!
Get out your knives, your guns, your nooses, your bonfires. You are the modern mob, wielding vigilante "justice", and you know better than even that Atticus Finch scumbag. I mean, really. Did you see that animal he was defending?
Radwaste at July 5, 2011 4:42 PM
Wow Rad. Seems like you are the one taking this personally. Planning on getting rid of some of your unwanted kids in the near future? Here's a tip... It takes at least five months to skeletonize a body, so just make sure you take the body far enough out into the swamp. Then, when there is no DNA you can blame the your whole family. Means, motive, and opportunity is still the court standard folks. Sorry this didn't have the nice little CSI ending you wanted Rad. Life isn't always convenient like that.
BTW, what evidence do you think we missed that the jury saw? In fact, I would argue we saw more bc we saw what happened when they weren't in the room. Especially the way her demeanor changed when the jury was gone. And it did change significantly.
Sheepmommy at July 5, 2011 5:06 PM
Lovelsoul has it right. She's been found not guilty due to the prosecution's attempt to convict her of murder and aggravated manslaughter without direct evidence to these charges. There really wasn't much to establish premeditation or recklessness and extreme indifference leading to the child's death. They wanted the conviction to carry death penalty eligibility and so set the bar too high. The jury probably came to the correct verdict considering the evidence that they were presented.
CA's defense was odd, but it demonstrated the possibility of another likely cause, which was accidental death due to negligence or abuse. Neither satisfies the charges available to the jury and so even if the jury believed that these were proven as elements in the crime, they couldn't incorporate them in their verdict.
joj at July 5, 2011 5:13 PM
My thoughts? I am (somewhat ashamedly) smug about how little I know about this case. What good has cable TV brought to this world?
Astra at July 5, 2011 6:22 PM
You can ask a million mothers how they would have responded in Casey's situation, and most wouldn't come close to what Casey did.
I think she suffers from mental illness...narcissistic personality disorder spiced with a little histrionic! Her complete lack of emotional attachment to anything outside her own existence is quite the marker, don't you think?
She is a sick girl for sure, but the prosecution didn't prove murder and that's that.
kg at July 5, 2011 6:24 PM
Radwaste is exactly right. And think on this, if you want to or can. Given the nasty comments about the jury that I have seen here and on other sites, why would anyone want to fulfill their civic duty and serve on a jury?
A trial like this upends your life for months. You have to spend days and days listening to highly complex evidence, and listen to both sides trying to say the other side's experts are wrong. A person's life is in the balance. And after making a judgement, which is what you are supposed to do, everyone reviles you and just knows they could do better.
Next time you armchair lawyers start whining about the jury system, I'll tell you about a couple of judges in Pennsylvania who colluded with operators of a juvenile detention facility (owned in part by a relative of a PA Supreme Court Justice) to deprive literally hundreds of juvenile offenders, and in some cases non-offenders, of all their rights, and consigned them to the juvenile detention facility for money.
Want to put your life in the corrupt hands of people like this?
One of the lowest circles of hell is reserved for those judges, and frankly, a slightly higher circle is reserved for the brilliant legal minds who purport to a god-like omniscience of the trial. Nancy Grace comes to mind.
Pardon the rant but our justice system will crumble with attitudes like some I have seen lately.
alittlesense at July 5, 2011 6:30 PM
Wow. I am shocked. Watched way too much of this over the holiday weekend. If I thought there would be any element of truth in the book she'll no doubt write, I'd be interested in seeing that - but not contributing a dollar to her for it. what a tragic loss of a child too... I did a little bit of criminal defense work waaaay back; all I can say is the defense team did a helluva job of throwing up reasonable doubt .. none of which I thought the jury would buy, but there you go. A circumstantial evidence case is veeeery hard to prove. You know as well as I do just how bad it looks for this ... "tot mom;" but the jury perhaps felt queasy enough with the possibilities, no matter how seemingly unlikley, that they could not convict. How about this though ... by her own implicit admission, either she or her dad disposed of the body; wonder why they didn;t charge her with abuse of corpse... some valid reasons not to pile on such charges & focus. Now all we can do is wait for her OJ moment. I remember SNL Weekend Update reporting when he was convicted of B&E/kidnaping/theft for the Vegas memorabilia thing .. "convicted of that ...but really murder.." Sad.
Mr. Teflon at July 5, 2011 6:35 PM
There is no question that CA was involved in her daughter's death. The cause is undetermined.
If the prosecutor had involuntary manslaughter on the table she might have been convicted.
If the prosecutor had thrown in abuse of a corpse and felony child abuse, those two probably would have stuck.
The lying to an investigator is a first degree misdemeanor with a max of 1 year and $1000 per count. If the judge gives her the max on all 4 counts, with time served, she'll probably do a max of nine more months. The charges can be expunged in about seven years.
But I'm in the ballpark with Raddy -- I'm cynical enough to know how the media can form the public's opinion with sound bites to believe the worst of someone, while the jury is actually hearing something almost 180° the other way.
Jim P. at July 5, 2011 7:30 PM
Burden of proof is on the prosecution and they apparently didn't have the goods for the charges they filed.
Since it was six months until the bones were found, there was minimal forensic evidence at hand. And none of that implicated the mother. Or anyone else, apparently.
Knowing and proving are different.
The mom is a sick and twisted individual, no doubt in my mind.
LauraGr at July 5, 2011 7:56 PM
I hate saying this because of the emotions of all the people that seem to be writing here. A lot of people are really angry over this.
I'm glad that she walked away with a not guilty. Not at all because I think she didn't do it. She did it, whether accidentally or on purpose, she only knows. I don't base this knowledge on solid facts, but on emotions. I'm glad that in one trial today that a jury based their ruling on evidence, instead of emotions.
Not all compulsive liars are murderers. People that have been molested have clinically been known to dissociate from their emotions, which would give a sound reasoning behind her partying displays. People that are committing a sane murder would not display such things because they would actually look guilty. The forensics in this case screwed up; they contaminated part of the evidence on the duct tape found on the child's skull. Forensics could also could not provide an actual cause of death, making any possibility remotely reasonable.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
Cat at July 5, 2011 9:08 PM
There's a reason they call that state FloriDUH.
The idiots on that jury are the reason.
Let's hope the judge gives her the max for each guilty charge and makes her serve the sentences consecutively.
Maybe she will get Dahmer-ed in prison.
PinkoPerforator at July 5, 2011 9:08 PM
Since it was six months until the bones were found, there was minimal forensic evidence at hand. And none of that implicated the mother. Or anyone else, apparently.
I will agree with that statement to a point.
The claim that the father was responsible for hiding the body immediately belies the statement that CA had no knowledge of what happened to her daughter. That logical inconsistency just doesn't fly with me.
That they cross-examined George Anthony on the stand which now puts it in evidence. If the prosecutor were to file charges now for conspiracy after the fact, give the mother immunity and let the chips fall where they may -- it might change things. Granted the mother has spousal privilege regardless.
I don't believe in prosecution immemorial. But this one doesn't quite sit right with me.
Jim P. at July 5, 2011 9:32 PM
When I was driving tonight I heard to different shows about this - both with the C.S.I effect.
First was women who is researching and hopes to publish on it about the effects of all these C.S.I type shows on the common citizen. She said that her research is indicating a trend that it is harder to get a conviction if you don't have the evidence like DNA - juries assume if someone did it then the prosecution must have that type of evidence available just like they do on TV.
The second was a guy talking about public opinion. He was saying that on these shows that the cops always get the correct person - so people assume that if you are taken in for a crime you must be guilty.
I have not seen enough of the coverage of the actual trial to venture a guess.
The Former Banker at July 5, 2011 11:21 PM
I never heard of her till yesterday.
NicoleK at July 5, 2011 11:51 PM
In India, we have slang terms for women who get off easy for very big crimes and men who get disproportionately screwed for very small offences.....the terms in the local language roughly translate as "boob/mammary allowance" and "cunt allowance" for women who get off extremely easy and "dick penalty" for men who get disproportionately screwed.
Redrajesh at July 6, 2011 3:22 AM
Covering up an accidental death isn't murder. One of the finest film noir movies dealt with this, "The Reckless Moment" (1949) starring Joan Bennett and James Mason . . .
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041786/
TRM was remade in 2001 as "The Deep End" which is a gayed-up hachet job.
Jay J. Hector at July 6, 2011 3:31 AM
Radwaste is exactly right. And think on this, if you want to or can. Given the nasty comments about the jury that I have seen here and on other sites, why would anyone want to fulfill their civic duty and serve on a jury?
***
Time off from work?
NicoleK at July 6, 2011 3:37 AM
"The claim that the father was responsible for hiding the body immediately belies the statement that CA had no knowledge of what happened to her daughter. That logical inconsistency just doesn't fly with me."
This is what boggles my mind too. Her story could've just been that she lost her daughter - maybe while partying, getting high, etc - then was too ashamed or afraid to say anything. That probably would've resulted in a neglect charge, but they knew the prosecutors had no evidence to show murder, so it likely would've left the same doubt with the jury without implicating her family. Why bring them in without cause?
I heard one of the alternate jurors last night say that he believed a "terrible accident" must've occurred, and the parents knew more than they were saying. The family really came off as dysfunctional, so the drowning/dumping the body scenario actually flew with this jury.
This alternate taught high school civics, so he wasn't dumb. He said the evidence just wasn't there.
I think the media did sensationalize this and, on several occasions, they showed photos of her partying that were actually taken BEFORE the child went missing, so what we *know* and what the jury heard may be very different.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 4:52 AM
I am a Floridian. I followed the case closely from day one. I was extremely emotional about the verdict becasue once upon a time, I wanted to go into criminal law or social work to defend little girls like Caylee. My sense of justice was offended at that "not guilty". However, as much as it pains me to say this, I agree with the verdict.
Now, I believe Casey is guilty as sin. Her story just didn't add up and her behavour leading up to her missing child's body being discovered was not that of a worried mother. But, being a selfish slut isn't a crime.
The fact is, while we all know she was somehow responsible for that little girls death, the prosecution couldn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the state and they failed to meet that burden. Any evidence they had to prove 1st degree was circumstantial at best. I think the prosecutors were overzelous and over reached. If they had 1) waited a bit longer to allow for more evidence to appear and 2) gone for the lesser charges like manslaughter, or child endangerment in the very least, Casey would be serving some real time. But, the state foolishly jumped the gun and tried to make an example out of Casey and in doing so, they failed to properly do thier job.
Don't be mad at the jury. They did the right thing by not convicting based on the evidence they had. Heck, even Baez doesn't deserve the scorn he's getting. He just did his job. Be mad at the prosecutor. The state is the one who fucked this up, not the jury.
Sabrina at July 6, 2011 5:06 AM
I think the big difference here is that the jury actually presumed she was innocent at the start of the trial. If this had been a mob prosecution, with a John Gotti as defendent, it would have been, Oh yeah, sure, he's wink-wink-nudge-nudge "innocent."
kevin_m at July 6, 2011 5:15 AM
If the cops had actually done a proper investigation of the scene when the bag was first found, then Casey would be on death row tomorrow.
Perhaps there was insufficient evidence to convict on Murder 1, but the third count of the indictment was for negligent manslaughter. Even if you believe the drowning story (I don't) she should have gone down for that.
brian at July 6, 2011 5:20 AM
I can't stand it when people bash the defense attorneys like they're evil for representing the defendant. They're simply doing their job. They don't have to believe in her innocence at all, just as long as they provide her with an adequate defense. That's our system of justice, and thank goodness it is.
The prosecution's case was basically, "She's a liar...she's a slut...she's a liar...she's a slut..." We can all agree. And there certainly could've been the connection in the jurors' minds of, "If she's innocent, why did she lie?"
That's the only way to find her guilty - to conclude her lying was proof enough that: 1) a crime was committed and 2) she did it. Those are two big leaps that are easy to make without evidence unless you're actually sitting on a capital murder case.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 5:31 AM
You can even see the CSI effect in many of the comments here. For those of you who believe that there was not enough evidence, guess what ... despite what you see on TV, there almost never is.
Circumstantial evidence is the cornerstone of our justice system. If you insist on a video tape, eyewitness, DNA, and a signed confession, our prisons would be empty.
The prosecutor did an excellent job. They had a mountain of circumstantial evidence that should have lead to at least a manslaughter conviction.
I have an acquaintance who is currently serving a life sentence for allegedly killing his business partner on about 1/10th of the circumstantial evidence presented in the Anthony case.
AllenS at July 6, 2011 6:20 AM
I am not saying that circumstantial evidence isn't good enough AllenS. I think it is. Evidence is evidence after all, however, the fact still remains that the evidence was tainted with doubt. (I didn't buy the defenses arguments either FWIW but someone on the jury did) If the evidence was strong enough, that wouldn't have been able to occur.
While I think circumstantial evidence is good enough in most cases, the circumstantial evidence they had for Anthony wasn't strong enough to convict on FIRST degree murder. The evidence they had supported manslaughter or at least child neglect, child endangerment, and unlawful disposal of a body. But that's not what she was being charged with. The prosecutions arguments were all about trying to prove intent for first degree murder. Intent is the hardest thing to prove. The prosecutor hung thier whole case on Anthony's character; That's where they failed. The pathologist wasn't even able to identify the cause of death. How can you prove intent without actually proving a murder took place to begin with? That seems, to me, to be one of the biggest problems with the prosecutions case. They didn't have the evidence to support a first degree murder conviction so the jury had to find her not guilty. I can understand that objections of course... She lied and she was found guilty of that but if she didn't do it then why would she need to lie?.. and how could she party while her child was supossedly missing for 30 days?... etc... but lying and being a bad mother does not = murderer, or at least shouldn't in a courtroom.
I will say though that the grand jury did apparently find the evidence sufficiant enough to take it to trial in the first place so I have to wonder what happened between then and now.
Sabrina at July 6, 2011 7:13 AM
"I have an acquaintance who is currently serving a life sentence for allegedly killing his business partner on about 1/10th of the circumstantial evidence presented in the Anthony case."
Yes, but I bet in that case the cause of death was known. If they could've proved this little girl had been murdered, I think there would've been a conviction. But since they had no cause of death, it couldn't be determined whether it was intentional, accidental, or even who was involved.
Really, all the prosecution had was her lies, and, of course, why would anyone drag detectives to Disney World, on a wild goose chase, when their daughter is missing? It's very circumstantial, but damning. Yet, apparently, not enough.
Another strange thing was the guy who found the body. He apparently reported seeing it there weeks or months earlier, then the area was searched, and they didn't find it. Suddenly, the body shows up exactly where he said. That was a bizarre turn of events that may have led to reasonable doubt. Theoretically, this child could've been found by a child predator after her partying mother lost her.
That is why her defense was so strange. She admitted to knowing HOW the child died, when she didn't even have to. Telling that unecessary lie pretty much confirms her involvement. I do not understand why manslaughter wasn't a possibility. Maybe the prosecutor just didn't make that clear to the jury?
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 7:15 AM
Without a cause of death, it was foolish to go for the charge they did. Her behavior was erratic and strange and yes, arguably damning.
HOWEVER, lying is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.
The death could very well have been accidental, and everything they did after that done to give the appearance that someone else had killed the child.
Better to be sympathized with for tragedy, than be thought a bad or neglectful mother.
There was a woman in Carolina years ago who left her child alone in a bathtub to go have a smoke, the child drowned, and she tried to cover it up by making it look like a kidnapping and a murder by a stranger.
She was charged with murder and acquitted, as I recall the acquittal came because they were able to show that the child drowned in the tub in just a few inches of water, not where the body was found, (in a shallow area of a pond), and the lack of any other trauma suggested it was an accident caused by negligence. An inexperienced mother who didn't realize the danger.
Robert at July 6, 2011 7:44 AM
I think that if you watch a lot of Nancy Grace, you're probably certain she's guilty of murder. As a casual observer of the trial, I think she's responsible for her daughter's death. I don't know that as a juror I could convict her of murder, though.
ahw at July 6, 2011 7:57 AM
I've said my case about the jury's decision and I won't criticize them any further. That's the way the system works, and we have to accept the jury's decision. But regarding CA herself:
"That probably would've resulted in a neglect charge, but they knew the prosecutors had no evidence to show murder, so it likely would've left the same doubt with the jury without implicating her family. "
They did this because CA's a narcissist, and that's what narcissists do. Throwing one's father under the bus is all in a day's work for a narcissist. Now here's the thing. Since she committed one murder and got away with it, she'll do it again. She thinks she's invincible now. And next time it might not be her own child, but someone else's.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2011 8:00 AM
Oh, I agree she's a narcissist. What is interesting is that since she threw her family under the bus, will she be able to go home again? It's like she didn't consider that. Usually, narcissists figure out all the steps, like a game of chess, but this seems to be a major miscalculation.
If she gives interviews, she'll have to stick to the drowning/molestation story, so there's no way for her to enjoy the fame without continuing to throw her family under the bus, yet, she needs them. Who will employ her? Who will take her in?
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 8:07 AM
That jury had what they believed to be a reasonable doubt. The system, with its bias for the defenedant, worked as designed. I think the verdict was probably wrong, but what Ithink doesn't matter.
No, Cousin Dave, I do not think she'll do it again. The comparison to OJ is instructive. If she runs afoul of the law, she can expect harsh treatment.
To the rest of us, the lesson is clear. Don't talk to law enforcement without counsel. It's not the crime, it's the cover up.
MarkD at July 6, 2011 8:16 AM
I guess she may just admit the drowning was another lie, and that her father never molested her. What does she have to lose? The public already knows she's a liar and she can't be retried. She'll claim it was something the defense made her go along with, thereby getting back in her family's good graces.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 8:17 AM
She can't go home again. Nor can any of the people she defamed in her defense ever be made whole again.
Not that she cares. The jurors didn't want to talk to the media for free because they intend to make bank on this.
She's gonna make bank writing the tell-all book about how she got away with post-natal abortion.
And she's going to continue fucking up people's lives until someone ends hers.
brian at July 6, 2011 8:28 AM
I let myself get sucked into this back at the beginning, when I was appalled at the story I read about a woman waiting over a month before reporting her missing child.
This story was a train wreck that got a little bigger every day. It was as fascinating as it was awful. If you're curious, Crimelibrary has a pretty good write-up of the whole sorry mess.
I'm not surprised she got off, but I do like this comment from one of today's stories:
Former prosecutor Vinnie Politan, who works for CNN's HLN channel, said the defense team successfully applied reasonable doubt to the prosecution's mountain of circumstantial evidence against Anthony.
"This jury found it reasonable to believe that a grandfather would see his granddaughter drown in an innocent manner, with no criminal liability, take that innocent accident, cover it up to frame his own daughter for first-degree murder and watch her have to battle a potential death penalty," he told Hill and Wragge. "They found it reasonable, so, under our system, she's not guilty."
Pricklypear at July 6, 2011 8:39 AM
"This jury found it reasonable to believe that a grandfather would see his granddaughter drown in an innocent manner, with no criminal liability, take that innocent accident, cover it up to frame his own daughter for first-degree murder and watch her have to battle a potential death penalty," he told Hill and Wragge. "They found it reasonable, so, under our system, she's not guilty."
Posted by: Pricklypear at July 6, 2011 8:39 AM"
Ya, I said it Rad,"Joe-Fucking-Jury-Public" (see above). Absolute, fucking, stupidity.
Apparently circumstantial evidence (which is what the MAJORITY of cases get decided on), and MOTIVE does not over-ride a bat-shit-crazy-wild-hair theory providing these jurors with a "reasonable doubt" (again, see above). If THAT is what constitutes "reasonable" doubt to an average juror - I can honestly say as a country, we are completely FUCKED.
And you know what, I am okay with that - in legal terms of a "fair trial" for not sticking her with Murder ONE. I get it. What I am not okay with - is Casey getting off on the manslaughter charge. If you tamper with a fucking body, if you don't report your daughter missing and LIE about her whereabouts - thus, making it impossible to determine the cause of death (and fucking up an investigation) - YOU SHOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES!
I mean shit - really? So anyone can just go out an kill their child- put them in a fucking wood chipper and say it was an accident, and that they hid it (and lied nine ways until Sunday) because they were suffering from delayed dissositive trauma because Mommy played with their po-po when they were five - AND GET OFF WITH CHARGES OF JUST LYING TO POLICE?
Un-fucking-real.
Feebie at July 6, 2011 9:20 AM
I mean, this is just logical - isn't it?
Caylee certainly didn't duct tape her own mouth, right? Why duct tape the mouth of a child that is already dead? How many mothers do you think (or grandparents) don't call 911 immediately after finding a drowned child. It is pretty instinctual, right? And even if it isn't, why duct tape their mouth AFTER? Why hide the body?
Duct tape....over a DEAD babies mouth? Un-fucking-real.
Feebie at July 6, 2011 9:34 AM
That's what I mean. When she was *just* a liar, there was reasonable doubt, especially when the cause of death wasn't provable. A liar doesn't necessarily make a murderer. She didn't need a defense beyond that. But when she concocts this crazy story, she tips her hand. Only a murderer, who knows the real way the child died, would make up a story about the death to cover up what they did.
It was the strangest defense ever, yet it worked with this jury. I can see not finding her guilty of murder one, but manslaughter is obvious by her own "admission". Yet, it's like the jury knew that was a lie, so they thought they couldn't convict her on something that obviously didn't happen, but, hey, if she's going to claim that's what she did - let her child drown, then cover it up - they should've at least punished her based on her own lies, which would be rather just.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 10:04 AM
I've studied law. As part of my studies, I've studied the jury process. Mock trials. Defenses, jury instructions, pre-emptive challenges...etc.
I've had to comb through book after book written by my college professors (also attorneys and prosecutors) about OJ and Bill Clinton (impeachment trial) how evidence is presented, defenses are argued and basically - overall how crappy this jury process can be when idiots are selected. How ill equipped the general public is in making these decisions around "reasonable doubt" because they don't understand that REASONABLE DOUBT does NOT mean there isn't a "REASON" to doubt.
What would a create REASONABLE doubt for a person is if that person was in the SAME situation, could they be REASONABLY be expected to do the same thing, or have the same thing happen to create this doubt....is this a REASONABLE excuse?
Her being a pathological liar doesn't make her a murderess...no. But everything, all together with the evidence, behavior, motive....what is REASONABLE?
Feebie at July 6, 2011 10:30 AM
Maybe because the prosecutor was seeking the death penalty they were applying the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard in lieu of the "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I still don't understand why they didn't seek the manslaughter charge here. Reasonable doubt was clearly met.
Feebie at July 6, 2011 10:41 AM
Feebie I was actually having a conversation with my coworker about this and he brought up your very same argument about reasonable doubt. I have to admit I didn't think about it that way before but that makes a lot of sense.
Sabrina at July 6, 2011 11:27 AM
Thank you Feebie. You are exactly right. I can tell from the comments being made by the pro-jury consensus out here that they really didn't follow the case. If you saw all of the evidence provided by the prosecution, you would have to find her guilty of at least manslaughter. I agree that the case for premeditation was weak and agree with the jury on that. But to decide she lied, and then let her go boggles the mind.
Btw for those of you who think her father was involved keep this in mind, he is a retired police detective. How likely is it that a former police officer would illegally dispose of his granddaughter's body in swamp bc she died by accident?
Sheepmommy at July 6, 2011 12:15 PM
I don't think anybody believes the drowning story, and maybe that is the problem. The jury knew that was a lie, so they felt they couldn't convict her on that. They seemed to take the attitude that since they didn't know what happened, they couldn't do anything, but that shouldn't have been the case. Maybe because the judge instructed them not to consider the molestation, they just threw that whole story out.
lovelysoul at July 6, 2011 12:53 PM
"I will say though that the grand jury did apparently find the evidence sufficiant enough to take it to trial in the first place so I have to wonder what happened between then and now."
While I do think Casey was at a minimum guilty of manslaughter, it is a running joke in legal circles and perfectly stated by a former NY justice, “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutors so requested.”
Just sayin'.
Feebie at July 6, 2011 1:00 PM
"While I do think Casey was at a minimum guilty of manslaughter, it is a running joke in legal circles and perfectly stated by a former NY justice, 'a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutors so requested.'"
I got some insight into this some years ago. I'm not sure if it works this way in all states, but in Florida there is no definite end point to a grand jury process; it keeps going until the prosecutor decides that it's finished. A friend of mine wound up on a grand jury and was stuck with it, on and off, for 18 months. Basically it goes like this: Case is weak, but the prosecutor really really wants the indictment. Grand gury comes back with a no bill. Prosecutor says, "I don't think you guys gave enough consideration to exhibits A, B, and C. Go debate some more and come back again." Grand jury goes, debates, returns another no bill. Prosecutor says, "You guys really aren't looking hard enough at exhibit A. Go debate some more." After about five rounds of this, the exhausted jury votes an indictment just so they can go home and get some sleep.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2011 2:32 PM
Thats interesting about the grand jury in FL. I live here but I have never been called for jury duty yet so I am not familiar with the process down here. Given what you just said Dave, if that's true, I am kinda grateful for that. Ugh....
Sabrina at July 7, 2011 4:40 AM
Yep, it's too bad we can't just throw people in jail - or electrocute them just because we are so sure they are guilty..."we" NOT being the jury of course.
I frankly don't give a crap if a possibly guilty person goes free, as long as the proper jury process was followed (Radwaste said it all). In contrast, many people (who knows how many?) remain in prison unjustly.
The person in the link below is my friend. No, that doesn't make him innocent - even if *I* know he is. What we know now is that even many of the people who testified against him admit that the evidence was not only weak but the "expert" conclusions were wrong, based on old science and also a BIG need for convictions. Business in the North Texas area had been real slow for the Feds, until Curtis' fan overheated.
I have frequently stated that it's too bad he wasn't accused of rape. He would have a better chance of being freed if he had DNA evidence on his side, and these days, it's all the rage to free prisoners based on DNA evidence (though that's a good thing).
http://truthinjustice.org/curtis-severns.htm
When Curtis gets out of prison, I'll start worrying about people like CA, and not one minute sooner.
gharkness at July 7, 2011 5:00 AM
"In contrast, many people (who knows how many?) remain in prison unjustly."
Not that many. With a murder clearance rate of only about 62%, there are PLENTY of guilty people walking around. I"m sure we make the "10 guilty go free than 1 innocent in prison" percentage easily. And that's just murder.
CSI has done juries and trials a big injustice. You simply can't pour molding gel into a wound and come up with a copy of the knife that made it, but that's the sort of thing expected nowadays.
momof4 at July 7, 2011 6:11 AM
"What I am not okay with - is Casey getting off on the manslaughter charge. If you tamper with a fucking body, if you don't report your daughter missing and LIE about her whereabouts - thus, making it impossible to determine the cause of death (and fucking up an investigation) - YOU SHOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES!"
And so, despite your saying you have studied law, you say here that tampering with a body and lying equals manslaughter?
Can you cite the definition of manslaughter and show it applies?
Because the court could not. And they didn't.
-----
One more time for Sheepmommy: if you watched television, you did not see the evidence, period, full stop. That is why your opinion now does not matter at all. Not one bit.
I've already given it more attention than the law will.
By the way - what's the point of televising these things anyway, other than selling Kleenex to outraged people? Distracting them from their country being looted to pay erstwhile voters?
Radwaste at July 7, 2011 3:34 PM
"Not that many. With a clearance...."
I am sure that will give great comfort to Curtis, as he languishes in prison, and his young son grows up without him.
gharkness at July 7, 2011 5:33 PM
Tip for mothers: Do this when the toddler's in trouble.
Radwaste at July 9, 2011 12:42 PM
I am down right embarrassed to live in Pinellas County. This jury flat out did not do their duty during the trial regardless of the verdict they returned. They did not take hardly any notes during the trial, they did not pay attention to all the evidence and testimony during the trial, and they didn’t ask any questions or review any evidence during deliberations. I say shame on all one of them for their entire lack of diligence with such an important responsibility and right which is given to citizens of the United States. I find it entirely ironic that the prosecutions case was based on the fact that Casey was sick and tired of living up to her responsibilities as a mother, and the jury that set her free was just as lacking in living up to their responsibilities as jurors. Apparently theysimply desired to go home. It would seem that Casey Anthony really was judged by a jury of her PEERS….Both the accused and the jury were equally irresponsible, un-intelligent, paid more attention to how they felt rather than the TRUTH, and now….oh gee I wonder how much money I can make off this horrible tragedy. I definitely can see how they could relate so well with the defendant….PATHETIC!!!!
Caylee Anthony Poll at July 12, 2011 7:05 PM
Leave a comment