[Freeda]

You're so right; the Susan Smith case does come to mind to me, too.

I think it is very probable that Casey will be convicted, although from what I've heard so far I would have to acquit of murder based on reasonable doubt, even though I am not at all sure that Casey didn't murder Caylee.

My thoughts center on the idea that I believe the defense may cause some reasonable doubt or evidence of some sort of diminished capacity which may cause the jury to spare her from the death penalty; but probably not from conviction of murder.

And there is some chance, depending on the evidence, that the drowning scenario will be believed; I've just tried to point out some evidence which could possibly be seen by the jury as supporting that theory, if they find it at all plausible. If the drowning evidence was believed by at least some of the jurors, it could cause a hung jury (requiring a new trial), conviction on an offense less than murder 1 (as a compromise verdict; and thus no death penalty eligibility), or, if all jurors could agree to the drowning evidence creating at least reasonable doubt of her having murdered Caylee, she could be acquitted of the murder charges, even though she would still be guilty on the charges of lying to police officers. The jury would not have to actually believe the drowning was 'probable'; they would have to acquit on murder if they had reasonable doubt about murder because of the drowning evidence, even if they believed that murder 'probably' occurred; because 'probably' is not enough to convict.

Another possibility, and I think it is a substantial one, is that the jurors will think that Casey accidently killed Caylee in some other way that she has never owned up to (one of the most logical being that she may have accidently oversedated Caylee with something like chloroform when she was just trying to keep her asleep so that she could go out with friends - which could be a lesser offense, but not premeditated murder), and then made up all the lies, applied the duct tape to the remains, (to make it look like a murder, in case the remains were found) etc., to cover it up and try to make it look like Caylee had been abducted (and murdered) by her (nonexistent) nanny. Again, if the jury thinks this, the proof of all of the lies will not change the fact that they have to acquit her of murder 1. We know that Casey had lied about many things, for years before Caylee ever died - such as, for years, making her parents with whom she lived believe she had a job at Universal, had a nanny for Caylee for while she was at work at Universal, etc; so lying, for some reason, was apparently a way of life for her. It still doesn't make her a murderer.

In Susan Smith's case, also, there was evidence of years of sexual abuse and mental turmoil, and though she even ended up admitting that she simply drove her two alive, awake, and seatbelted-in children (whom she had at first claimed had been abducted by a male stranger) into the water and let them drown (and I think in the balance of things that method of murder is even more ghastly, violent and merciless than what I think the Anthony jury will, if they convict her, probably think that Casey did - which will probably be, from the circumstantial evidence, that she sedated Caylee with chloroform/something similar and then sealed off her unconscious child's air supply with duct tape - although it is my understanding that there will be no forensic evidence of cause of death, due to the state that the remains were in when found), the jury spared Susan the death penalty and gave her life to serve. She is eligible for parole eventually although I doubt (and hope not) that she will ever be released.