I’m glad you brought up natural death. Notice the conclusion of the report states “no known medical history”. There are many cases of death with children every year where they die of natural causes from undiagnosed diseases. So, it is possible the death was natural. I tend to think the chances of that are remote, but they are not zero.
It is very common for people to feel guilty when someone dies under circumstances where they feel they MIGHT be held accountable, even though they did not murder them. For example, an elderly person under your care where you stand to inherit from them.
In this case, Casey lived a partying lifestyle with men who were partiers. It is entirely plausible that she could have been with one of these boneheads and her daughter at the same time, but let Caylee completely out of her sight while she did some crazy things or involved Caylee in some of the crazy things. Suddenly, someone abducts or attacks Caylee, threatens Casey, or Caylee has a fall, a strangulation in a cord, sometimes ignorant people toss babies around (check out youtube for videos), all sorts of things where Casey should know better. Perhaps she and her friend are snorting coke and do not want to call 911. Suddenly she feels very guilty, because she was guilty of negligent homicide, or her friend tells her she is, or her parents tell her she is - who knows ? This would set the whole game in motion to appeal for help with hiding the body. Caylee actually may have died naturally from an undiagnosed condition and Casey may only think that she has guilt. There are countless plausible possibilities that a public who is very angry with Casey refuse to even think about. Based on what I’ve read, it’s even quite possible that Caylee died while under the care of one or both of the parents - and George said to her on no uncertain terms that she should have been watching Caylee and she was going to jail, then offering to help hide the body and get her off. He could have reasoned that once the wooded area was searched, they could hide the body there because the searchers would not search there twice. We have absolutely nothing that proves that this was not what happened.
That’s why I tried to show the subtle deception in the M.E. report here - this report, if you go through sentence by sentence, stands on it’s head to IMPLY (not outright say) that the duct tape is the murder weapon. And it worked, because everyone BELIEVES the duct tape is the murder weapon BECAUSE THE M.E. SAID SO - BUT THEY M.E. NEVER DID SAY SO.
The M.E. report says the tape must have been applied BEFORE DECOMPOSITION. It is SILENT - IT SAYS NOTHING - about whether it was applied BEFORE DEATH.
It therefore IMPLIES (because it does not SAY this explicitly) that the tape could have been applied EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER DEATH.
The report makes the reader think the duct tape was the murder weapon - IF YOU READ IT’S CONCLUSION ABOVE - it never actually says that the duct tape WAS, IN FACT, the murder weapon.
That’s a real hum-dinger of an autopsy, IMHO.
But why would you put duct tape on a dead child’s mouth?
You’d put it on her while she was still alive. To keep her quiet.
After she is dead is serves no purpose.
So I think she was duct taped prior to dying.
If I give 6 weeks of my life (that I will never get back), sequestered, to do my civic duty...the evidence presented is sketchy, virtually every major witness is guilty of perjury and there is conflicting testimony by all the “expert” witnesses, I will be in jail myself.
I don't believe that convicting a person to life in prison or death should be a matter of...probability. Anthony did not present a sympathetic character.
The prosecution, for whatever reason, over charged and failed to prove their case. I read that there is an election coming up so the DA went for the “Gold”.
That being said...I think if Anthony didn't do it herself...she definitely knows what happened. Even with the lame defense...the prosecution couldn't get a conviction.
Why would anyone duct tape a little girls mouth after she was dead? Her mother is guilty of criminal negligence, criminal abuse, and at the very minimum, manslaughter. When a friend of a person going into a grocery store to rob, and kill a clerk drives away, he is guilty of murder, or manslaughter at minimum. The woman is guilty, and easily proven to be in a court. The fact that the jury could not even go that far proves that they were incompetent.