Skip to comments.How the Casey Anthony Case Came Apart
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 ...
Hundreds or perhaps thousands of parents have small children go missing without calling the cops????
We DO have problems!
Every mother who murders her children in this country will now use the “my father sexually abused” me defense.
We know what these people are.
It's just a question of the price.
You left out the part of the comment about reporting it to the police!
You would make an ideal juror.
We have a SERIOUS problem with dumbed down jurist not understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. Here is what Marcia Clark said about this today:
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: We think he probably did it. We just didnt think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons dont necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.
>>Justice was not served in this case - Casey got off on slimy, unethical legal tactics.<<
And the irony is, there are those who say they think Casey was guilty (as I do), yet the fact that she got off is proof that “the system worked.”
The Buckley quote is a true gem.
The man was not only a towering intellect, but prescient as well.
Seems to me that knowing your kid is in a plastic bag half submerged in a swamp, while spending over a month partying and telling people she is with a runaway baby sitter, is at least child neglect.
Or maybe you can't abuse a child if they are already dead?
Further, lots of people have been convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Often far less than was introduced here.
I think the ground rules are motive (check), access (check), and means (check); Prosecution's closing was that ONLY Casey had all three.
I can accept a verdict while still believing that the jury, for some reason, simply wanted to set her free going into the case.
However, if momma Anthony does not serve serious jail time for blatant perjury I'll have to revisit that acceptance.
As to emotion..."daddy and little brother raped me", "daddy hid the body", and "don't you understand my f&*%!ng involvement here?" are all pretty emotion laden statements.
And, there's much being made about imaginary friends, jobs, and fantasies in general, how come no one thought of that before the trial and determined Casey was too nuts to be held responsible?
I was a prosecutor for 18 years. I learned early on that if a detective brought me a case and tried to sell it by telling me what a bad person the suspect was, I knew right away their actual evidence sucked and the officer knew it. That assessment was never wrong.
This is your second time posting this silly comment; “Even if they couldnt prove murder, they proved abuse...”
The first time was over here...
...where I asked you to substantiate you assertion. To which you provided no reply. So, let’s try this again, as I repost the same question to you...
Please cite the specific evidence that the prosecution presented to the jury of child abuse, or even neglect (for which she was not even charged).
And by this question, Im asking for the SPECIFIC evidence the prosecution allegedly presented to the jury....NOT your personal interpretations, or opinions. Please post the factual evidence that was presented that beyond a reasonable doubt showed child abuse.
Lastly, before you reply, allowing someone else to have care of your child is not abuse, nor is not reporting that your child is deceased, evidence of child abuse
Actually, yes, many children go missing and no one calls the cops until much later. The wife was a case worker with the county. She found case after case of parents missing a kid and not wanting to call the cops. People do not trust the cops. The cops only point the finger at the parents and blame them. Of course, in most of those cases the parent was negligent, such as being drunk or stoned off their ass and the child wandered off. However, calling the police means to them exactly what you just said: Have a missing kid means you’re GUILTY! No one wants to call the cops only to have to happen. Not everyone lives in a pristine suburban world as you do.
This is complete BS... the meter reader told the police 3 or 4 times where the body was but the cops felt their job was to yell at him for laughing when one of the porkers fell into some mud, instead of searching for the body.
Had the cops listens to the meter reader the first time the body would have been collected into evidence 4 months earlier.
Blame the arrogant and stupid cops for that one...
NOTE: To everyone who thinks Casey was guilty, yet celebrates this as a case where “the system worked”...
Because of our legal system, it is unavoidable that guilty people will go free. I would rather see guilty people go free than innocent people convicted.
But this is not a cause for celebration, and not a fact to be accepted gladly.
It is a tragic and unfortunate reality. Caylee is still dead.
If justice was denied for Caylee (as I believe it was in this case), it is certainly not a “good” thing. If the murderer went free, the system did NOT work. It’s just that we have no better alternative system of justice.
This is the best system that’s ever been devised.
Maybe it’s not time to rejoice as much as accept the solemn fact that sometimes murderers go free.
“The O.J. trial had DNA and the dumb-ass jury still relied on what THEY definded as ressonable doubt....with that jury, ONLY a video of him killing Nicole could have convicted...they were guilty, as was the jury in the Anthony case, of leaning on ANY doubt...not resonable doubt.”
With the racist pigs on the Simpson jury, I doubt whether even THAT would have sufficed: “Too dark. Too grainy. Looks like George Bush holding the knife”.
Besides, Johnny Cochrane just made up another toddler level rhyme that tickles our Flipper-level intellect.
You are exactly right. The jury is not there to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Their job is to determine if the state has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve been on several juries (nothing as serious as this) where I knew the defendant was probably guilty but the prosecutor just didn’t get get it done and we aquitted. Burden of proof means something.
The problem is reasonable doubt as to what? As the prosecutor said, someone in that house killed Kaylee, but they never really proved who or how, or whether it was first degree murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, or something else.
They went for first degree murder with the death penalty. When you seek the high bar, you better makes sure you can clear it. They didn’t. Manslaughter or something lighter they may have got.
As I said, she is guilty, but the prosecution didn’t prove first degree murder. They should have either lowered the charges, made a deal, or put together a better case.
I live in Decatur, Ga. Look it up.
I’ve also been a juror and acquitted folks because the state just simply didn’t have the goods on them. This case was very simple to me. The nutzo did it.
The case “came apart” because the jury came from public schools that no longer teach critical thinking and from watching too many CSI shows. As a result, they assumed that every case is solved by DNA and no one should ever be convicted on circumstantial evidence, no matter how overwhelming.
A few years back Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife, Lacey Peterson. There existed less evidence in that trial than in the Anthony case.
He is now on death row in California.
To me, inane statements like that are indicators that 40 years of brainwashing people to be "nonjudgmental" has taken hold, much to the detriment of us all. Being "nonjudgmental" has become a crutch and a way to avoid responsibility for making tough decisions.
We see the results in jury trials like this and in the thoughtless "zero-tolerance" policies in schools. Too many people no longer have the ability to discriminate between good and bad, truth and lies, harmless and harmful.
One of the jurors even said she didn't like judging others and did not want to serve on the jury. But the judge would not allow her to be discharged. How can a person like that be trusted to make a fair and responsible evaluation of guilt or innocence?
What would be the motive for 12 independent strangers to conspire to acquit? Not race like some accused in the OJ trial. Not opponents of the death penalty, because they had to be approved by the prosecution as death penalty qualified. Not idiots, seem to be productive members of society. Could it possibly be that the prosecution did a lousy job from beginning to end? They should have never made it a death penalty case, even Susan Smith didn’t get the death penalty. Never had cause of death. And their biggest mistake was Mr. Crunk and George Anthony. Casey Anthony was attacked, rightfully so, for her actions while her daughter was missing, but what about George Anthony. He sleeps around with the volunteers that are looking for his missing granddaughter. WTF is that about. If the best you have is circumstantial evidence you better have extremely credible witnesses. Prosecution should have known better and went for aggravated manslaughter. It would have been a sealed deal rather then an acquittal.
The prosecution has to prove she killed the child beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. Casey’s behavior in that month where she would not even admit that Caylee was missing and went out of her way to deny that Caylee was missing does it for me. I don’t think Casey’s parents had a thing to do with the murder, but because the defense attorney was able to accuse the father in court, the idiots on the jury felt they had all they needed to vote not guilty. I’m not saying Casey killed her child with premeditation or even on purpose, but she is responsible for the Caylee’s death and disposal.
The jury had the option of finding her guilty of the manslaughter charge but came back with a verdict of not guilty.
>>The O.J. trial had DNA <<
but the fact that the defense showed that over 3cc’s of OJ’s blood sample was MISSING - and the DNA evidence was not collected in the first week after the crime -
there is a reasonable doubt
I ditto your comments and add that the government officials responsible for prosecuting this case did a lousy job.
If anyone is angry because they believe Casey is guilty then they should be angry at those that failed to convince a jury. Just saying Casey was a lousy mother and attempting to get a conviction on emotion is not something I want in my justice system.
As another poster said, the DA could have relaxed and monitored Casey for proof of guilt through wiretaps and other means instead of jumping to random circumstantial evidence needing an emotional jury for conviction.
I, for one, am proud of that jury for not succumbing to emotion and, instead, relying on presented evidence that was horribly lacking. The LE and DA in this case did a lousy job and wasted not only tax payer monies on this joke of a trial but wasted what might have been justice for the little girl, Caylee.
The judge did his part in presenting an impartial courtroom with a proper decorum. The defense did their part in refuting the prosecutions case. The prosecution did a horrible job in that they both failed to wait for trail until proper evidence could be presented for conviction and in presenting terrible evidence. The prosecutions presentations on the party habits of the mother have no bearing in deciding if she killed her child. That was simply relying on emotion for conviction.
Nice post...attorneys are on my shite list right now
till next time I need one..lol
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying she must have killed her kid because we can’t think of anyone else that might have done it is not proof. Saying someone “acted guilty” is not proof.
You would be amazed at the emotional instability that sets in on a person once they feel the eyes are watching. People no longer act like you might expect. Even you would act guilty of a crime you knew someone else committed in another State you never even knew if you thought someone was watching you for signs of guilt.
Why did the jury ignore DNA evidence of Caylee’s post-mortem hair found in the trunk of her mothers car that she abandoned? The woman was her mother, who’s job it was to look after her, maintain her safety and know her whereabouts at all times. To abrogate her responsibility in doing this for a full month while partying it up and allow her to turn up dead without giving truthful answers as to her whereabouts is reason enough for a child endangerment conviction had the child been found alive. But since she died we’re supposed to have a higher standard of evidence?
“They are won because the defendant cannot afford a legal team.”
Who is paying the defense lawyers? I have not followed it too closely, but she doesn’t have money, does she?
“I live in Decatur, Ga. Look it up.”
So, what does that have to do with any of my posts?
“child endangerment conviction “
If we locked up every parent that ever had a child go missing even for a few minutes not a single parent would escape jail. I prefer not to live in a police state.
When did she die? We don’t know.
Where did she die? We don’t know.
How did she die? We don’t know.
Given the above, how could the prosecution believe it could get a Murder One?
Plenty of blame to go around that evidence was lost...but lost it was.
If there had been a charge of gross negligence (culpa lata) we would still be bitching....but at least Casey would be incarcerated for a number of years.
The prosecution simply sought higher charges than the evidence supported.
When did she die? We dont know.
Where did she die? We dont know.
How did she die? We dont know.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I’m glad the Scott Peterson prosecutor wasn’t deterred by these unanswered questions.
Men also can't sleep with underage girls or be declared insane when they drown their kids in a bathtub.
Women as the courts have proved can do these things.
I did not follow the Scott Peterson case so I have no opinion.
Well said! If it were a single father with the same evidence, there would now be someone on death row.
No, I would not act guilty if I had not committed a crime just because someone was watching. If I had accidentally and unintentionally killed my child I’d call 911. If my child disappeared I’d call 911. Casey’s child was missing and she didn’t call 911. Instead she went out and partied. That’s because she knew where her child was and she knew she was responsible. She didn’t want anyone else to know. Once the child was disposed of her only problem was keeping her nosy parents out of the picture. Obviously she wasn’t thinking long term, but she was free to have a good time while it lasted.
I did not follow the Scott Peterson case so I have no opinion.<<<<<<<<<<
The point is that there are many, many murder cases successfully prosecuted without the when, where and how
known. The thing that bothers me about the Anthony case is that I suspect the unproven assertions made by the defense in their opening statement influenced the jury, despite the judge’s admonition.
I’m curious why the alternate juror giving interviews seems to speak to how the regular jurors were thinking, since they were not supposed to ever have discussed the case.
I am not a father/grandfather but I am 'stunned' the men of America did NOT see how easily it is to accuse without evidence of horrific crimes and never have to provide one shred of evidence of said accusation.
You know what another tragedy is? It is second to the mother possibly killing her own child, but what about those parents, friends, neighbors, and whoever. What about their knowledge of her actions? It seems not only did the little girl’s mother take part in some way if not directly but a whole bunch of other people must have known something but did and said nothing. I don’t want a nation of nosey busybodies but Casey wasn’t in her right mind. Unfortunately, too, we all see people act badly such as that and say nothing. Society almost expects people to act badly. We are told to say nothing and not be judgmental.
How many children will die at the hands of their parents directly and indirectly and if anyone says or does anything they are chastised as being in the wrong for doing so.
“No, I would not act guilty if I had not committed a crime just because someone was watching. If “
You would be surprised how subtle your actions, words, atitude, and routines change under such conditions.
“They went for first degree murder with the death penalty. When you seek the high bar, you better makes sure you can clear it. They didnt. Manslaughter or something lighter they may have got.
As I said, she is guilty, but the prosecution didnt prove first degree murder. They should have either lowered the charges, made a deal, or put together a better case.”
Caylee’s mom named in murder indictment
October 14, 2008|From Natisha Lance Nancy Grace Producer
From the article-
“Anthony is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police.”
Since you know Casey wasn’t in her right mind she must be aquitted. Sounds like the same logic the jury used. I just watched a video of the alternate juror who’s talking. He is an idiot. No question. It seems to me the defense managed to put the whole family on trial and so since Casey’s not the only lying dysfunctional person in the family, Casey has to be acquitted.
One big difference is, Casey’s parents were distraught even before they knew for sure that Caylee was missing. Casey, on the other hand, didn’t give a damn, as demonstrated by her behavior.
” It seems to me the defense managed to put the whole family on trial “
Actually, the prosecution did that. They opened the door to further family discussions. Again, they simply didn’t present evidence to say she killed her child, they presented evidence that she was a bad mommy. So, of course the defense was going to hold open that door and present all it had.