Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the Casey Anthony Case Came Apart
13 WMAZ ^ | 07/05/2011 | 13 WMAZ

Posted on 07/06/2011 12:09:07 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour

On Tuesday, the jury acquitted Anthony, 25, of murdering her child in June 2008.

The reason, legal analysts and court watchers said, is that despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence such as DNA or fingerprints directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's death was unclear.

"The prosecution put out a lot of dots, but they couldn't connect them,"

(Excerpt) Read more at 13wmaz.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anthony; caylee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

1 posted on 07/06/2011 12:09:13 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The burden was on prosecutors to prove their theory: that Anthony suffocated her daughter by placing duct tape on her mouth and nose, wrapped her in a Winnie the Pooh blanket and black trash bags, kept the body in the car’s trunk until the odor was too strong, and then dumped it in the woods near her house.

Legal analysts say prosecutors could not tie Anthony definitively to Caylee’s death. Prosecutors had no DNA, hair samples or other physical evidence that would do so.

They introduced controversial forensic techniques, such as an air-sampling method never before used in a criminal court case.

The researcher who pioneered the technique said the smell of decomposition filled the trunk of Anthony’s car. A defense witness countered that the smell could have come from food that had been found rotting in the trunk.

Karin Moore, a law professor at Florida A&M University, said the state’s case was circumstantial.

“Did they prove the manner of death? Did they prove the cause of death?” she said. “The state relied a lot on emotion.”


2 posted on 07/06/2011 12:11:07 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

3 posted on 07/06/2011 12:11:08 PM PDT by Red Badger (Casey Anthony: "Surprise, surprise."...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The case didn’t come apart so much as it never came together. And the prosecutor’s closing statement that “Somebody in that house killed Caylee” was pretty clear in being an admission that they were not certain that Casey had killed the little girl. You can’t get a jury to go beyond reasonable doubt when the prosecution itself has reasonable doubts.


4 posted on 07/06/2011 12:12:32 PM PDT by MeganC (Are you better off than you were four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence. I’m not even close to being an expert, but it seems like they should have held off on charging her, tapped her phones and her family’s phones and wait until she slipped up and did something incriminating.


5 posted on 07/06/2011 12:15:14 PM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Prosecutors spent half of their case depicting Anthony as a liar and a bad mother, but that didn't prove she killed her daughter, said Donald Jones, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law.

And that my friends is the base of the problem, the prosecution and the police screwed up the investigation and focused too much on her being a bad mother.

In the end that didn't prove the crimes alleged...

I'm more shocked that people are actually "shocked" at the verdict. The writing was on the wall from the moment the defense began disassembling the prosecutions case by using their very own expert witnesses against them to discredit all the evidence.

Anyone who couldn't see this coming right then was either stupid or blind...

6 posted on 07/06/2011 12:15:35 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s guilty as sin of something even if this was an accident gone bad or premeditated murder, but the state didn’t get over the hump of reasonable doubt. They didn’t have the evidence and they knew it and gave it their best shot with lots of emotion and character attack. That’s the way it rolls sometimes.


7 posted on 07/06/2011 12:17:52 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The prosecution proved the case. The jurors are idiots IMO.


8 posted on 07/06/2011 12:17:52 PM PDT by CitizenReporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence.

Its what they always do... just this time the defendant had a good legal team. If everyone charged with a crime in this country was afforded the level of defense she was, you'd see more and more of the evidence in criminal cases being discredited and tossed as we saw here.

The vast majority of criminal cases are won not because of great police work or good prosecutors. They are won because the defendant cannot afford a legal team.

9 posted on 07/06/2011 12:18:51 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Basically, in your opinion 90% of murderers should never be convicted.


10 posted on 07/06/2011 12:19:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Class Act: Casey Anthony Defense Attorney Gives Reporters The Finger

"Yesterday’s stunning verdict in the Casey Anthony trial has revealed a number of rifts in public opinion. While the overriding public opinion seems to be of stunned outrage, there are a few iconoclasts who feel that justice was served by the jury’s decision of not guilty on the charges of murder. But another, more secondary topic that has been just as hotly debated in the wake of the verdict has been the media’s role in this case. And Casey Anthony Defense Attorney Cheney Mason left little doubt on his true feelings evidenced by his gesture here."

"Shortly after the verdict had been reached yesterday, Mason spoke to the media covering this gruesome and sad story and chose to vilify the very media to which he was speaking. Apparently he wanted to be crystal clear on how he felt about the press, and felt that he needed this particular gesture to get his feelings across. Stay classy Cheney Mason!"


11 posted on 07/06/2011 12:19:41 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
“The state relied a lot on emotion.”

This is what I saw, too. It seems to have worked for many who were not seated on the jury. It would be interesting to learn how the jury wasn't impacted as were many "on the outside".

12 posted on 07/06/2011 12:19:55 PM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

Many cases are only circumstantial. Like Scott Peterson’s.


13 posted on 07/06/2011 12:20:12 PM PDT by CitizenReporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter
The prosecution proved the case. The jurors are idiots IMO.

Right....

14 posted on 07/06/2011 12:21:15 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

There’s one prosecutor who will never realize a political career.


15 posted on 07/06/2011 12:22:30 PM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

They demonstrated in that closing that the parents clearly were behaving consistently with a missing granddaughter, whereas Casey was out partying and lying to the family and police. There closing was quite powerful. Most thought it was a winner.


16 posted on 07/06/2011 12:22:52 PM PDT by ilgipper ( political rhetoric is no substitute for competence (Thomas Sowell))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter

>>The prosecution proved the case. The jurors are idiots IMO.<<

I tend to disagree. The jurors seem to be in good company.

I find it interesting that it has been said over and over that the prosecution was depending on emotion, rather than facts, that those that still think the jury was wrong are the ones that seem to be offering emotional responses themselves. That’s ok, but it is not how courtrooms should work.


17 posted on 07/06/2011 12:23:01 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Basically, in your opinion 90% of murderers should never be convicted.

If, in 90% of the criminal cases, the evidence is as poorly collected and presented as it was here. And the police investigation was a shoddy as this one then yes... the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and for a good reason.

18 posted on 07/06/2011 12:23:20 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour (With The Resistance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter

the Jury was thinking “Me following legaleeze. Me be smart juror” instead of asking “Did that woman kill her child?”


19 posted on 07/06/2011 12:23:27 PM PDT by MNDude (so that's what they meant by Carter's second term)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The ‘case’ got polluted when the defense was allowed in opening statement to ‘criminally’ accuse George Anthony of putting his ..... into his daughter’s mouth before he sent her off to school. THEY were NEVER required to PROVE this accusation....

IF you are a ‘father/grandfather and a woman decides to off her child you have been put on NOTICE it is potentially your FAULT.


20 posted on 07/06/2011 12:24:41 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Check out Cheney Mason’s remarks on this case as a “talking head” prior to his joining the defense team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2G0OszXEk


21 posted on 07/06/2011 12:26:26 PM PDT by Mjaye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter

“The prosecution proved the case”

OK, then, since you paid attention: Please give one concrete example of a piece of evidence that proves she killed her child.


22 posted on 07/06/2011 12:27:00 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

>>But another, more secondary topic that has been just as hotly debated in the wake of the verdict has been the media’s role in this case.<<

I happened on this case a week or two ago through a FR thread. I was surprised to find out an office mate knew about it. He said the news inundated you with it.

That explains it. I haven’t had TV since 1997. I just started following this. I’m getting the feeling that the jury got it right, at least based on the evidence they were exposed to. This woman may be guilty of the crime, but it looks like the prosecution did not make the case.


23 posted on 07/06/2011 12:27:11 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
In the end that didn't prove the crimes alleged...

Proved it to me...

24 posted on 07/06/2011 12:28:43 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (I'm sick of damn idiots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“common sense” should mean a lot more than a bunch of crap experts come up with. What part of common sense says that she didn’t kill the girl?


25 posted on 07/06/2011 12:29:04 PM PDT by MNDude (so that's what they meant by Carter's second term)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“Basically, in your opinion 90% of murderers should never be convicted.”

#####

Coming soon, to a society near you.

If we don’t get a handle soon on the jury problem, the only convictions that will be solidly assured, will be those involving “rich” white males.


26 posted on 07/06/2011 12:29:41 PM PDT by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Casey Anthony was convicted of four counts of lying to the police. What kind of questions did she lie about? If they were questions about the whereabouts of her child and she lied then why? Obviously to cover up what she did to her. Jurors can’t find her not guilty of murder when they then convicted her of lying about what happened. It’s just not logical. No wonder they call it Flori-duh.


27 posted on 07/06/2011 12:30:15 PM PDT by vigilence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter

Even if they couldn’t prove murder, they proved abuse, but the 12 idiots couldn’t grasp that


28 posted on 07/06/2011 12:30:34 PM PDT by hecht (TAKE BACK OUR NATION AND OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
Much of the evidence was destroyed because it was left in a swamp to rot. The prosecution used all the evidence they had.

Part of the other problem the prosecution had is that no one in the family was willing to help them. The grandparents and the brother didn't assist the police. The father of the child is unknown. The child essentially died alone with no one caring about avenging the child's death.

The murderer got away with it because of her lies that delayed the finding of the body and her parents were not willing to help the police.

This isn't the first time I have seen a cold blooded murderer escape justice.

29 posted on 07/06/2011 12:30:38 PM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas
It would be interesting to learn how the jury wasn't impacted as were many "on the outside".

That is easy. The jury never saw Nancy Grace or any other talking heads spewing their crap.

30 posted on 07/06/2011 12:31:47 PM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

“Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence.”

Are you serious? Lacking an eyewitness all cases are circumstantial. Considering that eyewitnesses are often mistaken a good circumstantial case is usually a better indicator of guilt.


31 posted on 07/06/2011 12:32:49 PM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

To me, if you have sole custody of your child, said child goes missing and you do not call the police, then same child turns up dead. YOU’RE GUILTY!

I do not need a video tape.


32 posted on 07/06/2011 12:35:20 PM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

“the Jury was thinking “Me following legaleeze. Me be smart juror” instead of asking “Did that woman kill her child?””

If the jury was asking “Did that woman kill her child?” then they were following “legaleeze”. I sure as Hell don’t want to be judged by a jury that simple asks, “Do I emotionally feel the defendant is guilty?” I want the prosecution to prove its case, and not rely on the liberal mentality of emotion.


33 posted on 07/06/2011 12:35:20 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
"Not sure why they charged her, knowing they had only circumstantial evidence."

Before he went insane, Vincent Bugliosi (the Charlie Manson prosecutor) could be relied on for some pretty insightful analysis. In his book, "Outrage" about the Simpson trial he wrote an excellent summation of how a prosecutorial team needs to present circumstantial evidence and a pretty strong analysis on the meaning of, 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Bugliosi contends that most citizens, and by extension, most jurors, view the evidence of a case as a chain, such that if one link is broken or discredited, the case falls apart. To the contrary, he argues that a better analogy is a rope in which the individual pieces of evidence should be regarded as strands, so that if one is broken, or undone, the strength of the remaining, unimpeached evidence may yet carry the weight of the case.

Now, in full disclosure, I did not follow this case closely enough to give an informed opinion as to how the prosecution failed to adequately present what they had, or if they simply didn't have enough...perhaps they just didn't have enough remaining strands to hold things together.

34 posted on 07/06/2011 12:36:01 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

IMO Casey did a masterful job of diverting the investigation with her month of avoiding family and then another couple of months claiming a kidnapping. All the smoke and mirrors allowed the body to become so decomposed that there was no chance to prove how she died. Then her lawyer could come out and suggest a pool drowning with no evidence to back it up. It was a brilliant strategy.

As an attorney, I do have a problem with defense counsel throwing around lies in opening statements, stating “this is what the evidence will show” and then never presenting any evidence of those assertions. But, once again, it was a brilliant strategy.


35 posted on 07/06/2011 12:36:41 PM PDT by keepitreal ( Good manners never go out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
but the state didn’t get over the hump of reasonable doubt.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the problem is that "reasonable doubt" has come to mean "the slightest fantasy of a doubt." Add to that what William F. Buckley said a couple decades ago: The most serious problem in America today is that people lack confidence in their own common sense. The Anthony jury verdict and the sickening attorneyspeak (from lawyers who love the legal chess game more than justice) I'm hearing in the wake of the verdict is proof of that.


36 posted on 07/06/2011 12:36:58 PM PDT by Cinnamontea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

I agree with your statement.

The state presented what evidence existed.

What part of “circumstantial” didn’t these jurors understand?

It seems they were afraid to make a judgment call without a smoking gun and a notarized 8 X 10 glossy of Casey wrapping the baby in duct tape.

Based on the conduct of all concerned there is only one reasonable conclusion to be reached - Casey murdered Caylee.

If Caylee died accidentally in the backyard pool why would the defense spend so much time trying to portray the father and brother as molesters of Casey? What would that have to do with a drowning scenario?

Justice was not served in this case - Casey got off on slimy, unethical legal tactics.


37 posted on 07/06/2011 12:36:58 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The more effeminate & debauched the people, the more they are fitted for a tyrannical government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Toll

“then same child turns up dead. YOU’RE GUILTY!

Well, then, you would be convicting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of parents that have found their children missing and then dead. What kind of retarded emotional vengance is that you just made? Anger is exactly what we want to be kept out of the courtroom.


38 posted on 07/06/2011 12:37:28 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

There was no accidental drowning, nobody puts duct tape over the nose and mouth of a drowning victim. It was a murder. Casey repeatedly lied to her family and police about where her daughter was. Casey clearly had a guilty knowledge not displayed by her parents and brother. Even if circumstantial, there was sufficient evidence for conviction.


39 posted on 07/06/2011 12:37:50 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
the trouble with Casey is that IMO she's a sociopath....she has dismissed her dtr as gone forever and has no emotion over it, and probably wouldn't talk much about it....

but I totally understand the jury....I totally agree that despite some damning personal behaviour, there was little else .....

believe me, Casey knows what happened..I think...she might have been on a huge drunk....but she at least has to know where she last saw her baby...

I think the DA gambled on going for the death penalty...I'll bet he thought she would crack and want a plea bargin...jokes on him....sociopaths don't admit to anything....

its been a joy though, seeing Nancy Grace's head explode...

40 posted on 07/06/2011 12:38:49 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vigilence
Obviously to cover up what she did to her.

But what is "what she did to her"? That's what wasn't proven. Did Caylee die in an accident and Casey try to cover it up? Did Casey intentionally kill her daughter? Did Casey flip-out and kill Caylee in a fit of anger? Did Caylee drown and Casey agree to cover it up to protect someone else? The prosecution didn't prove *what* happened, so she can't be found guilty of even manslaughter.

41 posted on 07/06/2011 12:40:26 PM PDT by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MNDude

Thank you for putting into words the way the jury was cleary thinking in this case. I’m sure they were sitting in the jury booth dreaming of their time on Dr. Phil’s couch.


42 posted on 07/06/2011 12:40:30 PM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

The case was lost when the 7 women jurors heard the mother lie about searching for choloroform on the computer. That told them she wanted Casey to get off.

There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Casey killed the girl.


43 posted on 07/06/2011 12:40:34 PM PDT by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

It seems they were afraid to make a judgment call

"Afraid" is the operative word. They were cowards who didn't want to feel responsible on the unreasonable chance they were wrong.


44 posted on 07/06/2011 12:40:46 PM PDT by Cinnamontea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter
The prosecution proved the case. The jurors are idiots IMO

The prosecution overestimated the intelligence of the jury. People are no longer taught logic or deductive reasoning in schools. The State needed to work in a Logic 101 course and spoon feed "connect the dots" for the jurors.

Never assume people have common sense

45 posted on 07/06/2011 12:40:55 PM PDT by weston (As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
actually, there is no evidence that Casey was a bad mother....

as an elderly lady said to me yesterday, Casey will have a life long sentence now....no matter the jury....

46 posted on 07/06/2011 12:41:09 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CitizenReporter
The prosecution proved the case. The jurors are idiots IMO

The prosecution overestimated the intelligence of the jury. People are no longer taught logic or deductive reasoning in schools. The State needed to work in a Logic 101 course and spoon feed "connect the dots" for the jurors.

Never assume people have common sense

47 posted on 07/06/2011 12:41:12 PM PDT by weston (As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Toll

Too much common sense in that remark.


48 posted on 07/06/2011 12:42:11 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Virtually every single criminal case is circumstantial.


49 posted on 07/06/2011 12:42:13 PM PDT by LowTaxesEqualsProsperity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
I’m not even close to being an expert, but it seems like they should have held off on charging her...

I paid little attention to this case, but I have come to the same conclusion. When a case becomes so popular and the media frenzy is self feeding, I wonder whether prosecutors bring cases too soon because of undue political and public pressure. That public sentiment weighs heavily on the side that she deserved a guilty verdict, perhaps driven by the “experts” repeating this mantra ad nauseam, I find akin to the MSM “experts” telling Americans what a wonderful and intelligent man Obama is and how is administration is infallible. The MSM has a powerful effect on public opinion.

50 posted on 07/06/2011 12:43:20 PM PDT by stayathomemom (Beware of kittens modifying your posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson