Casey - Innocent until proven guilty?

[jebartle]

Yipsters, looks like the state has a case that will be hard to dispute.....Can't wait until Baez "drops a bombshell"??????

[Gator Fan]

There won't be any "bombshell". Just a matter of Biaz muddying the waters enough for justice not to be done.

[deb133]

A very effective opening for the prosecution indeed! What could Baez possibly have that would overcome Casey's mountain of lies? If he does have a radical defense up his sleeve or a phenominal bombshell to drop, the only way to pull it off would be to have Casey take the stand and offer proof - if not the house of cards will come tumbling down. How can she sit there and shake her head "no" during the opening argument without taking the stand? I am having a nice lunch and will be ready for it in less than 1/2 hour ...

[Tbugs]

A few of us were discussing the Casey Anthony stuff while playing cards.

One of the guys said that Casey had been known to use chloroform to knock her child out so she could go party - and that is why the chloroform "scented" handkerchief in the car trunk is not relevant to the case.

Was there anything about her actually chloroforming the child so she could go out partying?

[LELANDJANE]

I don't think the defense attorney must have any self respect!
The things he used to describe the meter man seem to be self descriptive.
The bit about the sexual abuse- I wonder if the father has gone along with that to save Casey.

Just a thought and probably not a correct one

[graciegirl]

I don't think the defense attorney must have any self respect!
The things he used to describe the meter man seem to be self descriptive.
The bit about the sexual abuse- I wonder if the father has gone along with that to save Casey.

Just a thought and probably not a correct one

I agree with you Jane. Her father probably thinks he is saving her life. Casey Anthony must be a true sociopath to allow her family to take the blame for this.

[l2ridehd]

The defense attorney has self respect. Everyone regardless of their crime is entitled to the best defense possible. And her attorney should do everything possible to provide that. Although I agree she is a despicable person and deserves the worst, she is still entitled to a solid defense. Part of our system which I respect, innocent until proven guilty.

[rubicon]

Casey Anthony is a habitual liar. What I have learned about juries is that they will excuse or forgive a lot of bad behavior but never a liar...for obvious reasons. The defense knew what a struggle it would be to explain why a mother would not show immediate concern for a child gone missing. So he made it an accidental drowning and a dysfunctional family that had a practice of hiding secrets. But I am having difficulty believing that because her father was a homicide dective and he would have known that the cover up would make the situation much worse.

I felt the sexual abuse issue would come up but if it were true why didn't this issue come up sooner

[jebartle]

If (big IF) there was a drowning, an accident, why not give your loved one a proper burial....I know this is only the beginning but Baez has an uphill climb!....What a mess!

[nitakk]

Wow, what an opening day! I thought I'd never say this, but I actually felt sorry for George Anthony. It was a brilliant move on the prosecution's part to put him on the stand first to dispute the molestation and that he was there when Caylee supposedly drowned. Baez was left looking inept and unprepared. Day one definitely goes to the prosecution - they were sharp and prepared, giving a complete outline of everything they are going to prove with testimony.

[Freeda]

All the defense has to do is to create in one juror reasonable doubt (of premeditation) as to her guilt on murder 1 to save her from the possibility of a death sentence; that juror could force the other jurors to agree to conviction on a lesser, non-death-sentence-eligible, offense as a tradeoff in order to avoid a mistrial. I think that the drowning / sexual abuse scenario, as 'out there' as it may sound (and it sounds very 'out there' to me), may be enough of a twist and total disconnect from the prosecution's theory to possibly do that.

Baez all along said 'stay tuned' for a bombshell that we would not hear about until the trial, and boy did he at least deliver on that.

And who knows - since we have not heard the testimony, it is always possible that the jury could believe it (that is, that the death was an accidental drowning, followed by extremely poor judgment and a poorly conceived coverup that snowballed to tragic consequences), and acquit - at least on murder charges. (And it is also possible that it is the truth - personally I seriously doubt it, but who knows until we hear the whole story?)

[graciegirl]

Wow, what an opening day! I thought I'd never say this, but I actually felt sorry for George Anthony. It was a brilliant move on the prosecution's part to put him on the stand first to dispute the molestation and that he was there when Caylee supposedly drowned. Baez was left looking inept and unprepared. Day one definitely goes to the prosecution - they were sharp and prepared, giving a complete outline of everything they are going to prove with testimony.

Exactly! I agree.

It is so hard for me to believe anything about her is innocent. I personally, thank God, have never met a human who could party when their little one was MISSING...and I hope I never do.

[CMANN]

I watched the presentation today and was surprised that the prosecution really did not offer any evidence of premeditation. This is supposed to be the first-degree murder trial seeking the death penalty. There is proof that the girl was dead but really no proof as to how it happened. In my opinion the prosecution spent most of its time trying to make Casey Anthony looked at. I think the woman who presented the opening remarks of the prosecution did a very good job of that. I do think however that she didn't come across very likable. The prosecution presentor that is.

As far as the defenses opening remarks, I think the attorney did a fairly good job of muddying the water. If only 20% of the accusations made by the defense attorney turned out to be true then he has won the case.

Time will tell.

Keep in mind that being a despicable person a negligent mother and they generally hated person is not reason enough to execute someone.

Let us hope that justice is served whatever justice may be in this case.

C

[Schaumburger]

Living in in Illinois, I don't have accesss to the wall-to-wall, extensive coverage of this trial that Floridians are getting. Has anyone heard how long the trial is projected to last?

[CaliforniaGirl]

I watched the presentation today and was surprised that the prosecution really did not offer any evidence of premeditation. This is supposed to be the first-degree murder trial seeking the death penalty.
C

I disagree. All the searches for chloroform, how to make chloroform, household "weapons", etc. discovered on Casey's computer certainly sounds like premeditation to me. Also, placing duct tape over the child's mouth could have been just a really stupid thing to do (resulting in the child perhaps aspirating her own vomit, an accidental death), but duct tape over both mouth and nose would be premeditated murder.

What I don't understand is how any rational person could believe Baez's convoluted yarn. Why would anyone put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a dead (drowned) child?

[graciegirl]

Living in in Illinois, I don't have accesss to the wall-to-wall, extensive coverage of this trial that Floridians are getting. Has anyone heard how long the trial is projected to last?

Helene is watching it here on Court TV. Whoops. Tru something channel on direct TV.

[jackz]

[QUOTE=CMANN;357100]I watched the presentation today and was surprised that the prosecution really did not offer any evidence of premeditation.

I think we need to keep in mind that Opening Statements are NOT evidence. Evidence can only be brought in through the use of a witness and testimony. I believe the prosecution will begin the process of showing evidence of premeditation as it calls its witnesses and cross examines the defense witnesses.

It is a horrible situation when an innocent child is the victim of foul play, let's hope that the eventual truth comes out and the responsible party/parties are held accountable.

[LittleDog]

Before the trial there was the possibility of the Anthonys being hostile witnesses. As far as I could tell George was not a hostile witness. Maybe he was just "****ed" that he was thrown under the bus and decided to be cooperative. Just a thought.

John

[Freeda]

Also, placing duct tape over the child's mouth could have been just a really stupid thing to do (resulting in the child perhaps aspirating her own vomit, an accidental death), but duct tape over both mouth and nose would be premeditated murder.

What I don't understand is how any rational person could believe Baez's convoluted yarn. Why would anyone put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a dead (drowned) child?

I wondered too how this fits into the defense's story. I didn't hear the opening statements, because we're traveling, but from the accounts I heard about them I gather that the story is that Casey accidently let Caylee drown, her father either was home at the time or came home and discovered it; warned Casey that she would be imprisoned for neglect (and also said that 'your mother will never forgive you'); and that after that somehow in disposing of the body her father put the duct tape in place to make it look as though Caylee had been murdered by someone in order to disguise the fact that she had actually drowned - apparently to keep from implicating the family as being responsible. (??!!)

This is just my take on this from having heard bits and pieces; can anyone who actually saw the opening statements fill in any better what Baez said to explain the duct tape?

I agree that the whole thing sounds pretty preposterous. But it is not impossible that it happened. The prosecution's case has so many strong points that only some defense scenario totally off in a different direction has a chance of flying.

[CaliforniaGirl]

I agree that the whole thing sounds pretty preposterous. But it is not impossible that it happened. The prosecution's case has so many strong points that only some defense scenario totally off in a different direction has a chance of flying.

What's preposterous to me is to believe that a former law enforcement officer (George Anthony) would try to turn a tragic accident into a kidnapping/murder to redirect blame. He would have to know that all family members would be investigated and probably would not have been stupid enough to use duct tape and other evidence from his own home. But even if that happened, common sense says that they would have reported Caylee missing right away and would have put forth a very public effort in trying to find her...IMHO, that 31-day period of absolutely no effort being made to locate her completely negates Baez's tall tale.

[rubicon]

Gorge Anthony was a long time homcide detective and his experience would direct him to have notified the police immediately and not cover this up. Baez, rather Casey has her back up against a wall starting with her non-chalant behavior when her daughter went missing and the habitual lying to cover it up. How does one defend a mother who does nothing for 31 days? I am waiting to see if anyone testifies as to Casey Anthony's mental state.

By the way much to my chagrin I recently read where throughout history it has been established that more mother than we care to realize murder their young. the point being tha this is not an unusual event.

[CMANN]

I disagree. All the searches for chloroform, how to make chloroform, household "weapons", etc. discovered on Casey's computer certainly sounds like premeditation to me. Also, placing duct tape over the child's mouth could have been just a really stupid thing to do (resulting in the child perhaps aspirating her own vomit, an accidental death), but duct tape over both mouth and nose would be premeditated murder.

What I don't understand is how any rational person could believe Baez's convoluted yarn. Why would anyone put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a dead (drowned) child?

Please follow the trial. You may have a suprise.

C

[jebartle]

One of the many boyfriends said Casey relayed secret that George's only fault was hitting her and Lee tried to touch her chest?....This was said when the jury was out of the court room at the end of trial Thursday 5/26?

[LittleDog]

Assuming that Casey murdered Calee I have a suspicion that she did it to "punish" her mother. I think that there was a lot of turmoil in that relationship. I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense but Casey's state of mind as witnessed by her attitude after her daughter was missing casts doubt on her mental stability.

John

[jblum315]

Thinking that Casey a wild girl and mother always nagging her

[Freeda]

This was said when the jury was out of the court room at the end of trial Thursday 5/26?

That was a 'proffer', where the judge listens to evidence that one side is wanting to offer into evidence, but out of the jury's hearing, in order to determine whether to allow it into evidence, ie, to be heard by the jury.

It also preserves the issue for appeal, if the proffered testimony is excluded by the judge, by preserving it for the record in order for the appeals court to know what the excluded testimony would have been.

[graciegirl]

I wasn't going to watch the trial, but Helene comes down from her room with news briefs and I was kinda....drawn to see out of curiosity.

The young people who were Casey's aquaintances at that time all seem to be credible, normal, well dressed, employed, well spoken and unanimous in their opinion that during the time that Caylee was missing that Casey did not mention her, and did not appear to be looking for her and neither did she appear "down" or sad during that time.

To me, that says she is certainly not showing a normal reaction.

This trial almost seems that it was one of the made for TV court dramas. It truly is almost unbelievable...... And terribly sad when you see that darling little Caylee's face all of the time.

[JenAjd]

Casey may or may not be guilty. I'm just struck with the attention this case has gotten...THREE years of it!! I'm also quite sick of hearing about this and how the t.v. stations will interrupt regular programming for updates. Think of the cost this case has!! Where is the money coming from?? That family doesn't seem like they're wealthy.

This aside...doesn't it seem "over-kill" (no pun intended) how the t.v. stations seem to focus so much on the crime and such for their news-stories?? We lived up north and that didn't seem to be so much a factor there. It's almost like a "Cops" show...therefore we rarely listen to the 'news'.

[graciegirl]

Casey may or may not be guilty. I'm just struck with the attention this case has gotten...THREE years of it!! I'm also quite sick of hearing about this and how the t.v. stations will interrupt regular programming for updates. Think of the cost this case has!! Where is the money coming from?? That family doesn't seem like they're wealthy.

This aside...doesn't it seem "over-kill" (no pun intended) how the t.v. stations seem to focus so much on the crime and such for their news-stories?? We lived up north and that didn't seem to be so much a factor there. It's almost like a "Cops" show...therefore we rarely listen to the 'news'.

Jen.

I know that you in TV are getting a lot more coverage because it is close by and frankly because it is news.

But even the Today show has updates on the trial and they usually don't follow local news of trials. I guess it just says that this trial really has drawn the interest of people nationally and my guess is because of all of the video of that darling little person when she was alive. I know that she is "real" to me because of it. What precious, precocious, pretty, sweet little person she was.

[Tbugs]

After the trial is over - how long will it be until the premise comes to an episode of "Law and Order"?

[Freeda]

Right now I think that the evidence just heard today from Casey's brother's fiance, along with that from Casey's former boyfriends/friends about how caring, involved (teaching Caylee things, reading to her, etc), and loving she was as a mother, is going save her from murder 1. No matter what else the evidence is, I would never believe that an obviously loving mother (or father) IN HER RIGHT MIND would/could premeditatedly plan and research how to kill her child.

I think it is also important that the brother's fiance tearfully testified very strongly as to how good, kind, and loving a mother Casey was, and how well she took care of Caylee, despite the defense claiming that the brother had sexually abused Casey - in other words, the brother's fiance would have no reason to want to testify favorably about Casey as a mother unless it was the truth.

To me, all the evidence of Casey's acting so normally (and partying, shopping, etc) after the death of Caylee (who she had clearly loved), plus the evidence of her, as an obviously loving mother, allowing Caylee to sleep in bed with her and her casual boyfriend (something that any normally raised young woman would, I believe, see as an absolute taboo and would never do) is evidence that she had probably been sexually/emotionally (perhaps also physically) abused, and had learned to deal with bad things by repressing/denial behavior. I feel sure that the defense will call experts to this effect.

All of this is totally different than how I felt before the trial started, when I felt that the duct tape would be insurmountable.

It all remains to be seen.

[graciegirl]

Right now I think that the evidence just heard today from Casey's brother's fiance, along with that from Casey's former boyfriends/friends about how caring, involved (teaching Caylee things, reading to her, etc), and loving she was as a mother, is going save her from murder 1. No matter what else the evidence is, I would never believe that an obviously loving mother (or father) IN HER RIGHT MIND would/could premeditatedly plan and research how to kill her child.

I think it is also important that the brother's fiance tearfully testified very strongly as to how good, kind, and loving a mother Casey was, and how well she took care of Caylee, despite the defense claiming that the brother had sexually abused Casey - in other words, the brother's fiance would have no reason to want to testify favorably about Casey as a mother unless it was the truth.

To me, all the evidence of Casey's acting so normally (and partying, shopping, etc) after the death of Caylee (who she had clearly loved), plus the evidence of her, as an obviously loving mother, allowing Caylee to sleep in bed with her and her casual boyfriend (something that any normally raised young woman would, I believe, see as an absolute taboo and would never do) is evidence that she had probably been sexually/emotionally (perhaps also physically) abused, and had learned to deal with bad things by repressing/denial behavior. I feel sure that the defense will call experts to this effect.

All of this is totally different than how I felt before the trial started, when I felt that the duct tape would be insurmountable.

It all remains to be seen.

Your arguments are reasonable and well presented counselor. You may be right.

I think it is possible that Casey Anthony is a true sociopath; able to appear normal, yet having no concience or ability to feel deep emotional attachments. She also appears very narcissistic, another symptom of sociopathy. She appeared not to hesitate to use her friends checks and didn't appear to feel bad about that. I think that this malady is not developed but inate and she has probably evidenced symptoms all of her life, thus Cindy Anthony's frustration with trying to talk to her or direct her and their very bad relationship.

I would like to know who Caylee's father is. I wonder if that is going to be the "bombshell" evidence.

[LELANDJANE]

Freeda,

You could be right, but I doubt it!

You are certainly the person the defense would love to have on the jury.

[jebartle]

Good witness, not sure what the defense can do with her testimony!....I don't know how Casey kept up with all the lies......I thought Baez fell asleep during Cindy's testimony, very few objections if any!....This case may be shorter than they anticipated....Still do not understand HOW the defense is going to prove drowning theory without Casey taking the stand....We shall see!

[PennBF]

Judging from what I have heard I am convinced that George (father) is the
key to the answers. Probable cover up by him. He seriously lied each time he was on the stand. The question is why is he lying and there is no doubt
in my mind that he is.
Regarding her being a Sociopath. I have seen more qualities of a sociopath in the father than in her.
Regarding lying. Please explain what father in his right mind would not
ask who the father was. If that was and I am convinced it was a lie then
why would he lie. What is his motive??? So far I have not seen who the
father was??
He has thrown his daughter under the bus each time he was on the witness
stand and lied as he was doing it.
It should be remembered that as a Detective he has been on the witness
stand a number of times and is more than familiar with how to avoid replying
honestly to questions. He has offered a number of self serving statements
while lying.

[rubicon]

Reading the comments it becomes clear what the jurors are asking themselves. Keep in mind that it maybe both Goege and cindy Anthony are in a Cach 22. They have to defend allegations made against them by Baez and also probably conflited concerning helping the State convict their daughter. Also keep in mind that the attornys will make it appea that a defendant and or witnesses should have acted a certain way. As an example[U] they were critical of the manager at the tow service as to why if he knew the odor was of human decomposition why didn't he immediately call the police. It could have been for a number of reasons or none as he may have questioned what would have happened if he did and it amounted to nothing. Or perhaps he didn't want to gt involved. and if it was the latter do you think he would embarrrass himself with millions of people watching and with a question of how the police would have reacted. The point I am trying to make is that an attorney will make it appear that only one action or reaction should have occurred but that is not life. It is the same with George he took that car home to 1) cover up for his daughter 2) bot sure of what was going on and wanted to investigate more or 3) really never gave a thought to foul play. why becauseit was too personal it was his immediate family and he went brain dead. Bottom line this child was missing for 31 days and her mother mae no attempt to locate her. the jury is not going to get pass that one...and why Baez made up the drowning scenario.

[graciegirl]

George Anthony has a short fuse, probably suffers from anger issues and is danged used to having his way, but I don't think he caused Caylee's death or her birth for that matter.

Cindy Anthony also has a short fuse and is used to solving problems and fixing things and Casey would not ever obey, would lie all of the time and was extremely attractive physically. She was a hot number and not taking directions from her frustrated and far from perfect parents. It is the dysfunctional family of the year as far as white middle class families go.

It is the saddest ending to a life for a little girl who had such promise. A bright little sparkler who had such a zest for living.

I believe the motive here is the same one as that young woman who drowned her little boys in their car. She wanted to live her life without her children.

[CMANN]

So far I am not impressed with the prosecution's case. They are giving every opportunity to the defense to make Casey looked good. I wonder when they are actually going to present evidence of premeditated murder. Their attempt to show Casey's motive was laughed at by the judge.

Maybe things will be different on Tuesday.

C

[Freeda]

...Still do not understand HOW the defense is going to prove drowning theory without Casey taking the stand....We shall see!

Casey will most definitely have to testify; both as to the drowning and as to the sexual abuse. Unless there are witnesses who saw these things happen, who will testify to their having occurred, which I highly doubt, there is no other way she can prove these two things. Having claimed these two facts in his opening, there will have to be evidence of them; and Casey will presumably be the only person (since George denied them both) who will have knowledge of them.

Here are some other thoughts I have; and I seem to have many about this case, which I think is very interesting, in large part because it is so tragic. I've seen only excerpted testimony because we are traveling, but this is my take so far.

George testified that he smelled the unmistakeable smell of a corpse in the trunk of Casey's car when he went to the tow lot to pick up the car, and that at the time he feared that it could mean that either Casey or Caylee were in the trunk (since both of them, he claims, were, in his mind, 'missing' at that time). Then, he and the tow lot manager (who also testified as to having smelled the odor of a human corpse in the trunk), opened the trunk, and only a bag of trash was in there; nevertheless, the human corpse smell was, he says, was present and unmistakeable.

Still, since George believed (as an experienced police detective who, he testified, had smelled that odor before) that the smell in the trunk was that of a human corpse, why, if he had no culpability, as he claims, in the coverup of Caylee's death, and if he were truly concerned about the smell possibly being related to his (he claims) then-'missing' daughter and granddaughter, wouldn't he want to have the police inspect the trunk and document the presence of the smell BEFORE taking the car to his home from the tow lot?

In other words, (1) not only is it odd that he wasn't shocked enough by the smell of what he himself believed was from a human corpse having been in the trunk (at a time when his daughter and granddaughter were both supposedly 'missing') to have immediately called the police to investigate it; but also (2) by taking the car to his home, he left open the possibility that it could later be claimed that the smell of a human corpse in the trunk had occurred from a body being placed in the car AFTER he had retaken possession of the car - and, thus, potentially somehow implicating himself (in other words, I wouldn't want to risk even a slight possibility of having to explain how the smell of a human corpse got into a car that is in my possession - would you?)

This suggests to me that George took the car home with the intention of trying to somehow get rid of the smell because he realized it was from Caylee's body having been in the trunk, and he didn't want that to be detected - (and that can only mean that he was involved in, and, in denying it, lied about, a coverup -which further means nothing else that he testified to can be believed; and as mentioned in a post above, I too find much of George's demeanor not credible). However, Cindy detected the odor and called 911 and reported the smell coming from the trunk before he could do that. I think that at that point, George knew his number was up, and that he then was forced to reinvent his conduct to place the blame for what had been made (though falsely; by his and Casey's conduct) to look like a murder solely on Casey in order to hide his own involvement. I think that it was he, also, who did the computer searches (what I don't know is whether it was possible for the police to determine when the computer searches were done - and, if so, what dates they were found to have been done - the evidence on this will be very interesting), during this time frame, to frame Casey with this evidence, to make it appear that she had researched methods of causing death; again, in a desperate attempt to avoid any fingers being pointed to him, since he realized that the coverup was unraveling, and that the police investigation which he knew would ensue would likely conclude that Caylee had been murdered by someone - since that is what he and Casey had, through their conduct, including, among many other things (such as having applied the duct tape to the remains), Casey's having for some period of time, kept Caylee's remains in Casey's car trunk, made it appear had occurred (even though, ironically, the death had, in fact, actually been an accidental drowning).

All of Casey's numerous lies to her friends and mother could be evidence of covering up her having murdered Caylee, as the prosecution claims, but are equally totally consistent with Casey's defense that they (Casey and her father) were (though poorly conceived, and extremely ineptly and stupidly carried out) trying to cover up fact that Caylee had drowned (in order to, crazy as it may sound, avoid blame and prosecution of Casey for criminal neglect, which Casey will say her father had convinced her would occur) by building a scenario of Caylee being with a (now known to be nonexistent) nanny who (they hoped) would eventually be believed to have abducted (and perhaps murdered) Caylee.

Preposterous? Maybe; but some of George's conduct just doesn't fly, as questioned above; and it just may cause the needed reasonable doubt in at least one juror. These are just some thoughts based on the trial to date; it all remains to be seen.

Some comments I have heard in the media, etc., have referred to the drowning and sexual abuse theories having been 'thought up' by Attorney Baez. However, the facts that an attorney advances in a case must come from the client. The attorney, just as he cannot testify, also cannot concoct fictional favorable factual scenarios and then school the client to testify thereto; I do not believe that any attorney would risk losing their bar license, plus prosecution, by doing this. It is his job to help his client prove what she claims occurred that can provide a defense to the charges against her.

[robertj1954]

Casey will most definitely have to testify; both as to the drowning and as to the sexual abuse. Unless there are witnesses who saw these things happen, who will testify to their having occurred, which I highly doubt, there is no other way she can prove these two things. Having claimed these two facts in his opening, there will have to be evidence of them; and Casey will presumably be the only person (since George denied them both) who will have knowledge of them.

Here are some other thoughts I have; and I seem to have many about this case, which I think is very interesting, in large part because it is so tragic. I've seen only excerpted testimony because we are traveling, but this is my take so far.

George testified that he smelled the unmistakeable smell of a corpse in the trunk of Casey's car when he went to the tow lot to pick up the car, and that at the time he feared that it could mean that either Casey or Caylee were in the trunk (since both of them, he claims, were, in his mind, 'missing' at that time). Then, he and the tow lot manager (who also testified as to having smelled the odor of a human corpse in the trunk), opened the trunk, and only a bag of trash was in there; nevertheless, the human corpse smell was, he says, was present and unmistakeable.

Still, since George believed (as an experienced police detective who, he testified, had smelled that odor before) that the smell in the trunk was that of a human corpse, why, if he had no culpability, as he claims, in the coverup of Caylee's death, and if he were truly concerned about the smell possibly being related to his (he claims) then-'missing' daughter and granddaughter, wouldn't he want to have the police inspect the trunk and document the presence of the smell BEFORE taking the car to his home from the tow lot?

In other words, (1) not only is it odd that he wasn't shocked enough by the smell of what he himself believed was from a human corpse having been in the trunk (at a time when his daughter and granddaughter were both supposedly 'missing') to have immediately called the police to investigate it; but also (2) by taking the car to his home, he left open the possibility that it could later be claimed that the smell of a human corpse in the trunk had occurred from a body being placed in the car AFTER he had retaken possession of the car - and, thus, potentially somehow implicating himself (in other words, I wouldn't want to risk even a slight possibility of having to explain how the smell of a human corpse got into a car that is in my possession - would you?)

This suggests to me that George took the car home with the intention of trying to somehow get rid of the smell because he realized it was from Caylee's body having been in the trunk, and he didn't want that to be detected - (and that can only mean that he was involved in, and, in denying it, lied about, a coverup -which further means nothing else that he testified to can be believed; and as mentioned in a post above, I too find much of George's demeanor not credible). However, Cindy detected the odor and called 911 and reported the smell coming from the trunk before he could do that. I think that at that point, George knew his number was up, and that he then was forced to reinvent his conduct to place the blame for what had been made (though falsely; by his and Casey's conduct) to look like a murder solely on Casey in order to hide his own involvement. I think that it was he, also, who did the computer searches (what I don't know is whether it was possible for the police to determine when the computer searches were done - and, if so, what dates they were found to have been done - the evidence on this will be very interesting), during this time frame, to frame Casey with this evidence, to make it appear that she had researched methods of causing death; again, in a desperate attempt to avoid any fingers being pointed to him, since he realized that the coverup was unraveling, and that the police investigation which he knew would ensue would likely conclude that Caylee had been murdered by someone - since that is what he and Casey had, through their conduct, including, among many other things (such as having applied the duct tape to the remains), Casey's having for some period of time, kept Caylee's remains in Casey's car trunk, made it appear had occurred (even though, ironically, the death had, in fact, actually been an accidental drowning).

All of Casey's numerous lies to her friends and mother could be evidence of covering up her having murdered Caylee, as the prosecution claims, but are equally totally consistent with Casey's defense that they (Casey and her father) were (though poorly conceived, and extremely ineptly and stupidly carried out) trying to cover up fact that Caylee had drowned (in order to, crazy as it may sound, avoid blame and prosecution of Casey for criminal neglect, which Casey will say her father had convinced her would occur) by building a scenario of Caylee being with a (now known to be nonexistent) nanny who (they hoped) would eventually be believed to have abducted (and perhaps murdered) Caylee.

Preposterous? Maybe; but some of George's conduct just doesn't fly, as questioned above; and it just may cause the needed reasonable doubt in at least one juror. These are just some thoughts based on the trial to date; it all remains to be seen.

Some comments I have heard in the media, etc., have referred to the drowning and sexual abuse theories having been 'thought up' by Attorney Baez. However, the facts that an attorney advances in a case must come from the client. The attorney, just as he cannot testify, also cannot concoct fictional favorable factual scenarios and then school the client to testify thereto; I do not believe that any attorney would risk losing their bar license, plus prosecution, by doing this. It is his job to help his client prove what she claims occurred that can provide a defense to the charges against her.


The defense only needs to raise a reasonable doubt in the juries mind to get a not guilty verdict. The State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I cannot imagine Casey's attorney allowing her to take the stand in her defense. That would be a foolish act in my opinion. She would never stand up to the blistering attack that would come from the State.

This case is both tragic and unique with a young single parent mother charged with the murder of her own child! It is difficult to comprehend anyone being capable of that horrible act. However there are plenty of past cases to prove it happens for all kinds of reasons.

The jury can only use the evidence they learn in the trial to form an opinion on guilt or innocence. I have watched the trial and on the 3rd day, when George Anthony testified about his daughter’s car and the smell, I did not find him credible. That issue, coupled with the Fiancée’s testimony, had to have an impact on many of the jurors.

It will be interesting to hear from the forensic side and the investigators. They better have some compelling evidence that will marginalize what has been said already in the trial.

[duffysmom]

Casey will most definitely have to testify; both as to the drowning and as to the sexual abuse. Unless there are witnesses who saw these things happen, who will testify to their having occurred, which I highly doubt, there is no other way she can prove these two things. Having claimed these two facts in his opening, there will have to be evidence of them; and Casey will presumably be the only person (since George denied them both) who will have knowledge of them.

Here are some other thoughts I have; and I seem to have many about this case, which I think is very interesting, in large part because it is so tragic. I've seen only excerpted testimony because we are traveling, but this is my take so far. George testified that he smelled the unmistakeable smell of a corpse in the trunk of Casey's car when he went to the tow lot to pick up the car, and that at the time he feared that it could mean that either Casey or Caylee were in the trunk (since both of them, he claims, were, in his mind, 'missing' at that time). Then, he and the tow lot manager (who also testified as to having smelled the odor of a human corpse in the trunk), opened the trunk, and only a bag of trash was in there; nevertheless, the human corpse smell was, he says, was present and unmistakeable.

Still, since George believed (as an experienced police detective who, he testified, had smelled that odor before) that the smell in the trunk was that of a human corpse, why, if he had no culpability, as he claims, in the coverup of Caylee's death, and if he were truly concerned about the smell possibly being related to his (he claims) then-'missing' daughter and granddaughter, wouldn't he want to have the police inspect the trunk and document the presence of the smell BEFORE taking the car to his home from the tow lot?

In other words, (1) not only is it odd that he wasn't shocked enough by the smell of what he himself believed was from a human corpse having been in the trunk (at a time when his daughter and granddaughter were both supposedly 'missing') to have immediately called the police to investigate it; but also (2) by taking the car to his home, he left open the possibility that it could later be claimed that the smell of a human corpse in the trunk had occurred from a body being placed in the car AFTER he had retaken possession of the car - and, thus, potentially somehow implicating himself (in other words, I wouldn't want to risk even a slight possibility of having to explain how the smell of a human corpse got into a car that is in my possession - would you?)

This suggests to me that George took the car home with the intention of trying to somehow get rid of the smell because he realized it was from Caylee's body having been in the trunk, and he didn't want that to be detected - (and that can only mean that he was involved in, and, in denying it, lied about, a coverup -which further means nothing else that he testified to can be believed; and as mentioned in a post above, I too find much of George's demeanor not credible). However, Cindy detected the odor and called 911 and reported the smell coming from the trunk before he could do that. I think that at that point, George knew his number was up, and that he then was forced to reinvent his conduct to place the blame for what had been made (though falsely; by his and Casey's conduct) to look like a murder solely on Casey in order to hide his own involvement. I think that it was he, also, who did the computer searches (what I don't know is whether it was possible for the police to determine when the computer searches were done - and, if so, what dates they were found to have been done - the evidence on this will be very interesting), during this time frame, to frame Casey with this evidence, to make it appear that she had researched methods of causing death; again, in a desperate attempt to avoid any fingers being pointed to him, since he realized that the coverup was unraveling, and that the police investigation which he knew would ensue would likely conclude that Caylee had been murdered by someone - since that is what he and Casey had, through their conduct, including, among many other things (such as having applied the duct tape to the remains), Casey's having for some period of time, kept Caylee's remains in Casey's car trunk, made it appear had occurred (even though, ironically, the death had, in fact, actually been an accidental drowning).

All of Casey's numerous lies to her friends and mother could be evidence of covering up her having murdered Caylee, as the prosecution claims, but are equally totally consistent with Casey's defense that they (Casey and her father) were (though poorly conceived, and extremely ineptly and stupidly carried out) trying to cover up fact that Caylee had drowned (in order to, crazy as it may sound, avoid blame and prosecution of Casey for criminal neglect, which Casey will say her father had convinced her would occur) by building a scenario of Caylee being with a (now known to be nonexistent) nanny who (they hoped) would eventually be believed to have abducted (and perhaps murdered) Caylee.

Preposterous? Maybe; but some of George's conduct just doesn't fly, as questioned above; and it just may cause the needed reasonable doubt in at least one juror. These are just some thoughts based on the trial to date; it all remains to be seen.

Some comments I have heard in the media, etc., have referred to the drowning and sexual abuse theories having been 'thought up' by Attorney Baez. However, the facts that an attorney advances in a case must come from the client. The attorney, just as he cannot testify, also cannot concoct fictional favorable factual scenarios and then school the client to testify thereto; I do not believe that any attorney would risk losing their bar license, plus prosecution, by doing this. It is his job to help his client prove what she claims occurred that can provide a defense to the charges against her.

I so agree with everything you said Freeda. I do not find George credible and his demeanor has sent up red flags. On In Session there is a lawyer commentator (Sunny) who has prosecuted pedophiles and she stated that sometimes the pedophiles' victims learn to compartmentalize their lives and appear to be doing well just as Casey has in order to survive. In any event as of today I have reasonable doubt. More will be revealed.

[JimJoe]

What was the cause of death? When was the child killed? Where was she killed? Why was she killed?.. and Who killed her?
Do they have any evidence to answer any of those questions? From what I have heard thus far.. and I have not followed it closely, they can prove the innocent child died, and her mother lied about knowing the child was dead. Is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that her mother is the person that killed her?
JJ

[Barefoot]

What's preposterous to me is to believe that a former law enforcement officer (George Anthony) would try to turn a tragic accident into a kidnapping/murder to redirect blame. He would have to know that all family members would be investigated and probably would not have been stupid enough to use duct tape and other evidence from his own home. But even if that happened, common sense says that they would have reported Caylee missing right away and would have put forth a very public effort in trying to find her...IMHO, that 31-day period of absolutely no effort being made to locate her completely negates Baez's tall tale.


I disagree. All the searches for chloroform, how to make chloroform, household "weapons", etc. discovered on Casey's computer certainly sounds like premeditation to me. Also, placing duct tape over the child's mouth could have been just a really stupid thing to do (resulting in the child perhaps aspirating her own vomit, an accidental death), but duct tape over both mouth and nose would be premeditated murder.

What I don't understand is how any rational person could believe Baez's convoluted yarn. Why would anyone put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a dead (drowned) child?

Since I'm currently out of the US, we're getting minimal Trial coverage here. I really appreciate Freeda's detailed information and analysis of the proceedings.

Still, I find myself agreeing with CaliforniaGirl's two posts above. As a seasoned police officer, would George have put duct tape on a dead child with hearts drawn on it? The one thing that is completely clear to me is that the Anthonys were a terribly disfunctional family. Poor little innocent Caylee.

[islandgal]

I have never (and hopefully never will) seen eyes so full of hate as Casey's eyes were when her mother was testifying about trying to locate Casey and the child.

They were intense and frightening. You could see hate firing out of them!

[LittleDog]

I have never (and hopefully never will) seen eyes so full of hate as Casey's eyes were when her mother was testifying about trying to locate Casey and the child.

They were intense and frightening. You could see hate firing out of them!

Thats why I think that the death was attributed to Casey's bad relationship with her Mother. In some convoluted reasoning I think she was trying to get back at her Mother. Unfortunately a young innocent child had to pay for that.

That's just my opinion of why the death occured.

John

[graciegirl]

I have heard that Casey wanted to have an abortion and her mother wouldn't hear of it.

You would have to have the wisdom of Solomon to know what really happened.

I get a sense that they are both screwed up, but Casey most of all.

Who is the father of that child and does it matter??

[jebartle]

Gather there was an altercation regarding Casey stealing $40,000 from her grandparents life savings.....Wonder when this will come out?

[dillywho]

Casey will most definitely have to testify; both as to the drowning and as to the sexual abuse. Unless there are witnesses who saw these things happen, who will testify to their having occurred, which I highly doubt, there is no other way she can prove these two things. Having claimed these two facts in his opening, there will have to be evidence of them; and Casey will presumably be the only person (since George denied them both) who will have knowledge of them.

Here are some other thoughts I have; and I seem to have many about this case, which I think is very interesting, in large part because it is so tragic. I've seen only excerpted testimony because we are traveling, but this is my take so far.

George testified that he smelled the unmistakeable smell of a corpse in the trunk of Casey's car when he went to the tow lot to pick up the car, and that at the time he feared that it could mean that either Casey or Caylee were in the trunk (since both of them, he claims, were, in his mind, 'missing' at that time). Then, he and the tow lot manager (who also testified as to having smelled the odor of a human corpse in the trunk), opened the trunk, and only a bag of trash was in there; nevertheless, the human corpse smell was, he says, was present and unmistakeable.

Still, since George believed (as an experienced police detective who, he testified, had smelled that odor before) that the smell in the trunk was that of a human corpse, why, if he had no culpability, as he claims, in the coverup of Caylee's death, and if he were truly concerned about the smell possibly being related to his (he claims) then-'missing' daughter and granddaughter, wouldn't he want to have the police inspect the trunk and document the presence of the smell BEFORE taking the car to his home from the tow lot?

In other words, (1) not only is it odd that he wasn't shocked enough by the smell of what he himself believed was from a human corpse having been in the trunk (at a time when his daughter and granddaughter were both supposedly 'missing') to have immediately called the police to investigate it; but also (2) by taking the car to his home, he left open the possibility that it could later be claimed that the smell of a human corpse in the trunk had occurred from a body being placed in the car AFTER he had retaken possession of the car - and, thus, potentially somehow implicating himself (in other words, I wouldn't want to risk even a slight possibility of having to explain how the smell of a human corpse got into a car that is in my possession - would you?)

This suggests to me that George took the car home with the intention of trying to somehow get rid of the smell because he realized it was from Caylee's body having been in the trunk, and he didn't want that to be detected - (and that can only mean that he was involved in, and, in denying it, lied about, a coverup -which further means nothing else that he testified to can be believed; and as mentioned in a post above, I too find much of George's demeanor not credible). However, Cindy detected the odor and called 911 and reported the smell coming from the trunk before he could do that. I think that at that point, George knew his number was up, and that he then was forced to reinvent his conduct to place the blame for what had been made (though falsely; by his and Casey's conduct) to look like a murder solely on Casey in order to hide his own involvement. I think that it was he, also, who did the computer searches (what I don't know is whether it was possible for the police to determine when the computer searches were done - and, if so, what dates they were found to have been done - the evidence on this will be very interesting), during this time frame, to frame Casey with this evidence, to make it appear that she had researched methods of causing death; again, in a desperate attempt to avoid any fingers being pointed to him, since he realized that the coverup was unraveling, and that the police investigation which he knew would ensue would likely conclude that Caylee had been murdered by someone - since that is what he and Casey had, through their conduct, including, among many other things (such as having applied the duct tape to the remains), Casey's having for some period of time, kept Caylee's remains in Casey's car trunk, made it appear had occurred (even though, ironically, the death had, in fact, actually been an accidental drowning).

All of Casey's numerous lies to her friends and mother could be evidence of covering up her having murdered Caylee, as the prosecution claims, but are equally totally consistent with Casey's defense that they (Casey and her father) were (though poorly conceived, and extremely ineptly and stupidly carried out) trying to cover up fact that Caylee had drowned (in order to, crazy as it may sound, avoid blame and prosecution of Casey for criminal neglect, which Casey will say her father had convinced her would occur) by building a scenario of Caylee being with a (now known to be nonexistent) nanny who (they hoped) would eventually be believed to have abducted (and perhaps murdered) Caylee.

Preposterous? Maybe; but some of George's conduct just doesn't fly, as questioned above; and it just may cause the needed reasonable doubt in at least one juror. These are just some thoughts based on the trial to date; it all remains to be seen.

Some comments I have heard in the media, etc., have referred to the drowning and sexual abuse theories having been 'thought up' by Attorney Baez. However, the facts that an attorney advances in a case must come from the client. The attorney, just as he cannot testify, also cannot concoct fictional favorable factual scenarios and then school the client to testify thereto; I do not believe that any attorney would risk losing their bar license, plus prosecution, by doing this. It is his job to help his client prove what she claims occurred that can provide a defense to the charges against her.

Freeda, looks like you and I have many of the same thoughts.

One of the biggest questions I have is concerning the defense's request for a mistrial based on the prosecution's attempt to show lack of remorse. Judge Perry denied the motion and said that they were right if that is what the prosecution was doing, but that they were just trying to show her lack of conscience. Many of the media talking about the trial have pointed out in some of their statements that the prosecution is trying to show the jury her lack of remorse and have said nothing about conscience.

Questions: If seasoned reporters (some of which are/have been lawyers themselves) are interpreting the prosecution's line of questioning as showing remorse, how is a jury made up of lay people not going to think the same thing? Will the judge explain to them the difference and tell them that they cannot consider any of the testimony in this phase of the trial as lack of remorse? If not, will they know the difference? The jury was not present for his explanation when he denied the motion.

I have watched this every day so far and there are so many inconsistencies (for lack of a better word), it is unreal....such as:

George testified on the first day he was on the stand that on the 16th of June, supposedly the last day he saw Caylee, he asked Caylee where she was going and she said, "Zanny's".

Question: If Zanny is a figment of Casey's imagination, where did that come from?

Question: Why has no one asked any of those testifying if they had ever heard Caylee talk about Zanny? My kids talked constantly about their sitter.

Question: If George was familiar with the smell and police procedures, why didn't he call the police?

He testified that he drove the car home and then went to work.

Everytime Baez asked him if the smell was stronger when he opened the trunk than it was when he first opened the driver's door, he kept saying that all he saw in the trunk was a bag of garbage. About the 4th time, Baez told him that he didn't ask what he saw but that he had asked if the smell was stronger. George finally said, "No", chewing Baez out at the same time for continuing to ask him, and once again added that he had already told him four times that all he saw was a bag of garbage.

Question: How could Cindy recall first and last names so well of supposed friends of Casey's after being told only one time who they were but couldn't recall some exact events? Many of these names were in her testimony about the supposed trip to Tampa and Zanny's car wreck. Many of us have problems relating names (especially first and last of people we have personally met, sometimes on numerous occasions). Much too detailed to be very credible.

Cindy seems to call all the shots in the family and Casey is about the only one that would ever cross her. The man at the tow lot testified as to how much George kept apologizing to him for Cindy's beratings.

Question: Why didn't George just tell her to back off?

George was asked about when he was told Casey was pregnant. They asked him about who the father was. His reply was, "I don't know...I didn't ask." Whaat? Most fathers I know would not simply ask, they would demand to know. My guess is (and it is just a guess) that Cindy was in control there, too.

I don't buy their story of drowning and a cover up as presented, yet. I have thought all along that she probably drowned or accidentally died some other way...not premeditated murder, at least not from what I've heard so far. As for the "secret", Lee alluded to family secrets at Caylee's eulogy that he delivered, which apparently didn't raise any flags then.

One big mystery to me is how she has been sitting in jail all this time and not broken. When she reacts (and it's been this way all along), she faking it or guilty. When she has had no reaction, she's hard or cold or totally uncaring.

It was kinda funny when the prosecution was trying to get some AOL IM's in to show motive, the judge said that if motive was what they were after it looked to him like she should have been planning to kill her parents. He quickly told them to forget that he'd said that. It was apparently his attempt a leveity. (He didn't allow the transcripts.)

There's been so much talk about Baez's inexperience, but why have so many "seasoned" lawyers not had him plead her out to a lesser charge and moved on? That tells me that there is lots more to this story. They surely haven't stuck around for the money...especially with her defense now on state money.

These are only a small sampling of my questions/observations. Reminds me of a big ball of tangled string. It is so hard to understand how one family can seemingly be so dysfunctional.

At this point, there are far more questions than answers. There is still lots more to come. Unfortunately, the absolute truth will probably never be known.

[graciegirl]

Freeda, looks like you and I have many of the same thoughts.

One of the biggest questions I have is concerning the defense's request for a mistrial based on the prosecution's attempt to show lack of remorse. Judge Perry denied the motion and said that they were right if that is what the prosecution was doing, but that they were just trying to show her lack of conscience. Many of the media talking about the trial have pointed out in some of their statements that the prosecution is trying to show the jury her lack of remorse and have said nothing about conscience.

Questions: If seasoned reporters (some of which are/have been lawyers themselves) are interpreting the prosecution's line of questioning as showing remorse, how is a jury made up of lay people not going to think the same thing? Will the judge explain to them the difference and tell them that they cannot consider any of the testimony in this phase of the trial as lack of remorse? If not, will they know the difference? The jury was not present for his explanation when he denied the motion.

I have watched this every day so far and there are so many inconsistencies (for lack of a better word), it is unreal....such as:

George testified on the first day he was on the stand that on the 16th of June, supposedly the last day he saw Caylee, he asked Caylee where she was going and she said, "Zanny's".

Question: If Zanny is a figment of Casey's imagination, where did that come from?

Question: Why has no one asked any of those testifying if they had ever heard Caylee talk about Zanny? My kids talked constantly about their sitter.

Question: If George was familiar with the smell and police procedures, why didn't he call the police?

He testified that he drove the car home and then went to work.

Everytime Baez asked him if the smell was stronger when he opened the trunk than it was when he first opened the driver's door, he kept saying that all he saw in the trunk was a bag of garbage. About the 4th time, Baez told him that he didn't ask what he saw but that he had asked if the smell was stronger. George finally said, "No", chewing Baez's out at the same time for continuing to ask him, and once again added that he had already told him four times that all he saw was a bag of garbage.

Question: How could Cindy recall first and last names so well of supposed friends of Casey's after being told only one time who they were but couldn't recall some exact events? Many of these names were in her testimony about the supposed trip to Tampa and Zanny's car wreck. Many of us have problems relating names (especially first and last of people we have personally met, sometimes on numerous occasions). Much too detailed to be very credible.

Cindy seems to call all the shots in the family and Casey is about the only one that would ever cross her. The man at the tow lot testified as to how much George kept apologizing to him for Cindy's beratings.

Question: Why didn't George just tell her to back off?

George was asked about when he was told Casey was pregnant. They asked him about who the father was. His reply was, "I don't know...I didn't ask." Whaat? Most fathers I know would not simply ask, they would demand to know. My guess is (and it is just a guess) that Cindy was in control there, too.

I don't buy their story of drowning and a cover up as presented, yet. I have thought all along that she probably drowned or accidentally died some other way...not premeditated murder, at least not from what I've heard so far. As for the "secret", Lee alluded to family secrets at Caylee's eulogy that he delivered, which apparently didn't raise any flags then.

One big mystery to me is how she has been sitting in jail all this time and not broken. When she reacts (and it's been this way all along), she faking it or guilty. When she has had no reaction, she's hard or cold or totally uncaring.

It was kinda funny when the prosecution was trying to get some AOL IM's in to show motive, the judge said that if motive was what they were after it looked to him like she should have been planning to kill her parents. It quickly told them to forget that he'd said that. It was apparently his attempt a leveity. (He didn't allow the transcripts.)

There's been so much talk about Baez's inexperience, but why have so many "seasoned" lawyers not had him plead her out to a lesser charge and moved on? That tells me that there is lots more to this story. They surely haven't stuck around for the money...especially with her defense now on state money.

These are only a small sampling of my questions/observations. Reminds me of a big ball of tangled string. It is so hard to understand how one family can seemingly be so dysfunctional.

At this point, there are far more questions than answers. There is still lots more to come. Unfortunately, the absolute truth will probably never be known.

Excellent Dilly who. You really have thought about this. I thought it inappropriate too when the judge made that comment that if that was her motive, she didn't kill her parents, or words to that effect.

I think that I heard or read that "Zanny" may have been her slang word for Xanex. She may have given Xanex to Caylee to make her sleep so she could leave and go to clubs.

I am repeating hearsay, and can't even say where I heard that.

I am shocked by the "in your face" attitude of Cindy that I have seen many times and by George's barely controlled anger, evident to me in many situations that I have seen in the last three years. Remember when George went off supposedly to kill himself? There must be some mental illness not diagnosed in that family. They don't seem normal at all to me.

I just cannot see how Casey doesn't react when she sees the tapes of her very appealing little girl shown in the courtroom. If it were me and my daughter was dead and I saw those adorable films I would be absolutely inconsolable, as would most people.

[jebartle]

testimony today was compelling....ONLY cold hearted Casey was the only one that had NO compassion for her mom........Even Chaney Mason (Casey's other attorney) was looking at her at break with GREAT concern about defending that little liar!!!!!.....This case looks like a No-Brainer...

[rubicon]

I don't believe Baez explanation as to why it took 31 days to callpoice. George A an experienced cop he would not have made things worse by hiding an accidntal drownng. It is not known how and when Caylee died and it may never be known. If Casey does have the answers she must be a sociopath because I can imagine anyone putting their parents through what George and cindy anthony have faced these three years.

So for those who don't believe Baez drowning story how do you explain a mother who does nothing for 31 days.

I also noted another contradiction concerning this drowning story, If Casey knew her daughter drowned June 16th then why in her staements following her onfrontation by both her mother nad the police did she claim she had been seaching for her daughter through other sources? Why didn't she just say to her Mom or the police talk to my father he will tell you what happened?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[LittleDog]

And also if the drowning happened as the defense alleged why was there diapers, caylees toothbrush, and her clothes in the car? Answer me that!

John

[josephine71]

But do they have to take off my soaps to prove that she is a lier and her poor mother to sit there and get questioned and to answer I feel so sorry for her...Put my soaps back on she is guilty as sin....

[rubicon]

Folks I hope the following explanation shows up in this trial......will someone please explain why Casey anthony was driving around with a bag of garbage in her car for so long a period a pizza box is found with maggots? Is it possible Casey did so to cover up decomposed body odor? Wouldn't the average person immediately eliminate something that stinks?

I have been involved in trials for my entire career (civil not criminal) The one thing I learned about jurors is they can tolerate a lot of flaws about a witness but they cannot abide a liar. Casey is a big LIAR. Keep in mind even after her mother confronted her she is still talking about the nanny

Finally it is an additional slap in the face to us all that our tax dollars are supporting her defense. Even sadder the parents will never have closure because she will never tell what happened to caylee

[CMANN]

This girl has issues. She did not lie to cover up. All the lies existed before Calee was dead. Very confusing.

I am still looking for evedince of foul play in the death of caylee. So far I have only seen evedince that Casey was a good mom.

C

[rubicon]

Caylee' s remains are found a block away in a plastic bag and having tape over her mouth would indicate that she was the victim of foul play.

Caylee was not seen or heard from for over 31 days and this really good Mom is party Pamela and doesn't seem concern that her daughter is absent. With a Mom like that kids don't need to be afraid of strangers.

[dillywho]

But, there has got to be more here than meets the eye.

If the mother/daughter relationship was all that Cindy would have everyone believe, why would Casey not just go away to do as she pleased (she was an adult according to Cindy) and leave Caylee with her parents? As long as she was with her grandparents, it couldn't be child abandonment, could it? She certainly could have had the freedom to do as she pleased that way. Her friend, Amy, testified to Casey and her mother's frequent arguing. Why does her mother say one minute that Casey was a great mom, and yet her friend says her mother called her unfit and threatened to take Caylee away from her? How can it be both ways? Were Cindy's threats just another control tool?

No doubt, Casey was/is very self-serving. As much as Cindy obviously loved Caylee, she is much the same. Seems to me, they used each other with the baby caught in the middle. She even said on the stand that she and Casey are very much alike.

If there was a problem with her dad (as the defense came out with in the beginning of the trial), could it be that Casey's seeming distain/hatred for her mother stems from her mother maybe knowing about it and not doing anything about it or ignoring it?

Why did George report the gas cans theft right away, but not the smell of death coming from his daughter's car if he really thought they were both missing?

At the beginning of today's coverage, it was pointed out (by the media) that because Baez was making the objections on direct, he is the one required to cross-examine. With Mason being the more experienced, why does he not make the objections instead of coaching Baez on what objection to raise? The analysts seem to think that Mason would be more effective. Is their plan just to count on an appeal?

Too many questions, too few answers.

[CMANN]

Caylee' s remains are found a block away in a plastic bag and having tape over her mouth would indicate that she was the victim of foul play.

Caylee was not seen or heard from for over 31 days and this really good Mom is party Pamela and doesn't seem concern that her daughter is absent. With a Mom like that kids don't need to be afraid of strangers.

Caylee's remains, tape over her mouth have not been entered into evidence yet. She may be as guilty as sin but as I said I have not seen the evidence yet.

Something is rotten here. I think we're in for a few surprises.

C

[jebartle]

this family (if Caylee drowned) would find disposing of this dear little child in a swamp more logical??? rather than reporting to police as a drowning which is an accident and certainly not a murder.....My conclusion NO drowning, another Casey lie.....Let's face it, this girl does not know how to tell the truth, like she said "I'm such a good liar!....Lee testimony is dragging....object, side bar, object, side bar...boooooring!..The wheels of justice go round and round!

[jblum315]

Gracie, I love your signature. But in this case, it was too late for poor little Kaylee.

[graciegirl]

I don't believe Baez explanation as to why it took 31 days to callpoice. George A an experienced cop he would not have made things worse by hiding an accidntal drownng. It is not known how and when Caylee died and it may never be known. If Casey does have the answers she must be a sociopath because I can imagine anyone putting their parents through what George and cindy anthony have faced these three years.

So for those who don't believe Baez drowning story how do you explain a mother who does nothing for 31 days.

I also noted another contradiction concerning this drowning story, If Casey knew her daughter drowned June 16th then why in her staements following her onfrontation by both her mother nad the police did she claim she had been seaching for her daughter through other sources? Why didn't she just say to her Mom or the police talk to my father he will tell you what happened?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I agree with you once again Rubicon.:wave:

[graciegirl]

Gracie, I love your signature. But in this case, it was too late for poor little Kaylee.

You are right Jeanne, as usual, and that is what breaks my heart.

[rubicon]

Caylee's remains, tape over her mouth have not been entered into evidence yet. She may be as guilty as sin but as I said I have not seen the evidence yet.

Something is rotten here. I think we're in for a few surprises.

C

CMANN I have to agree with that. I am ahead of the evidence. Touche'

[jebartle]

How does she keep all those lies straight!....Wonder what was going thru that little brain of Casey's while she was listening to her testimony to the detectives...She certainly had an opener when the detectives suggested if it was a drowning, to tell them and they would protect her from whatever she fears...Liar, liar, pants on fire!

[Freeda]

There is no question but that if Casey was being prosecuted for being a liar (that is, lying to her family, friends, etc -- she IS being prosecuted for lying to the police officers, and on those charges I think she has very little, if any, chance of being acquitted), she would be convicted. When I hear the things she lied about but consider them in the context of the testimony from so many about what a great and loving mother Casey was, there is a disconnect that I think may puzzle some of the jurors, also. If it does, that will probably save her from the death sentence.

The question still is, and will be when the jury is deliberating, not as to whether she lied, but as to whether she was lying to cover up a murder, versus to cover up a drowning which foolishly had been made (in order to avoid possible prosecution of her - or also George, perhaps - could that have been in his mind, depending on how the drowning had happened? - for negligent homicide, which Casey will apparently say that her father told her could happen - and, remember, he was a police detective, so she would likely have believed his opinion, if he had advised this) to appear to be a murder (by the alleged, but later shown to be fictitious, nanny who Casey initially claimed to have abducted Caylee) .

By the time Casey was arrested, all of the evidence that made it appear that Caylee had been murdered (whether she was, in fact, or not) was already in existence, so it was really too late for Casey, or anyone else, to unring that bell; so I'm thinking that she will probably say she panicked and lied because she thought that the drowning would not be believed, because of the things that had been done to try to cover it up; and, of course, in retrospect the persistent lying just made it worse, and allowed for more charges against her; and makes it even more difficult to now prove that it was an accidental drowning.

It is going to be fascinating to see what she says when she testifies.

Some info I've seen online of some people with lipreading skills said that some of the comments she was making a few days ago when she was angry before or during the breaks in her mother's testimony were statements like "hurts me ... she's here to protect him ... she's never protected me (lawyer mentions giving Cindy a chance) .. she's been given a chance for 3 years ... did nothing ... and everyone will help him ... and I can't help __(? missing word)... that hurts so bad." (Now, how accurate this info is I don't know - I didn't attempt to match the words to her inaudible speaking on the video - but some said that when they replayed the video of these statements, the words matched what she was saying). Regardless, even if these were, in fact, Casey's statements to her attorney, were they genuine (which I think fits with her apparent intended testimony of being abused) or was she 'puffing' in order to (in her mind) save face and keep her attorneys aligned with her story?

I still feel, and I think that this is some of the evidence that most favors the defense, that the fact that Casey had allowed Caylee to sleep with her and a casual (or ANY) boyfriend, as testified to by the boyfriend, plus her claim to one boyfriend, also testified to by him (at a time when she was not being accused, and in need of manufacturing such a claim) that her brother had attempted to fondle her breasts, makes me think Casey had probably been sexually abused. (And if the brother had done that, where did he learn that unnatural, between a brother and sister, behavior?) That was the only statement she made to her boyfriend about the subject, according to him, but I have read that abuse victims who have learned to repress and deny this information may only be able to reveal it in 'layers' over time - ie, telling a small part, then more parts as they become trusting of the person in whom they are confiding.

If George did sexually abuse Casey, that would make him, to me, sociopathic and capable of other wrong things. That type of relationship could also cause an unnatural reliance or willingness of Casey to go along with other direction from George.

How the sexual abuse allegations which Baez told us in his opening will be made (and it will have to come, apparently, from Casey testifying) will tie into the whole case, and (if believed by the jury) perhaps be explanative of some of Casey's lying and other conduct remains to be seen.

These are just some thoughts, hurriedly thought out - even I may not agree with them all tomorrow! It all remains to be seen. It's way too soon to make a final judgment about it all.

[jebartle]

You know of course, Susan Smith, loved her children also, but she wanted a relationship more than her children, they seemed to be in the way....There seems to be some corrilation to C. Anthony case....

[rubicon]

You know of course, Susan Smith, loved her children also, but she wanted a relationship more than her children, they seemed to be in the way....There seems to be some corrilation to C. Anthony case....

Your spot on jebartle

[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.

[dillywho]

Unlike Susan Smith, even after 3 years, they have never been able to break her. Why? How has she managed to keep her mouth shut, lawyer or no lawyer. Most people, when pushed or angered enough, will finally blurt out what they did or something. Not her.

How can they apply the death penalty if they cannot conclusively determine the cause of death? The ME stated in her press conference that she could not determine the cause of death. That being the case, when was the duct tape wrapped around the head -- before or after death? Couldn't the defense claim that it was all part of the "cover-up story" in case the body was found when Casey was claiming a kidnapping (her original story before it started to unravel) so it could be blamed on the "kidnapper"?

Like Freeda says, there is still room for doubt. Some of the analysts pointed out that in one of the jail tapes played in court today, George and Casey both talked about Caylee in the past tense. Does it mean anything? They kinda gave it a maybe yes, maybe no. I noticed also, that at one time on the tape before they knew why Casey left the conversation abruptly, Cindy told George to "get over here and sit down". He was apparently trying to find out where she went and why. (Casey had to be led out anytime another inmate was brought into the area where Casey was on the jail phone and was then brought back when they were gone.) I still think Cindy was/is very controlling.

What a mess!:loco:

[graciegirl]

Unlike Susan Smith, even after 3 years, they have never been able to break her. Why? How has she managed to keep her mouth shut, lawyer or no lawyer. Most people, when pushed or angered enough, will finally blurt out what they did or something. Not her.

How can they apply the death penalty if they cannot conclusively determine the cause of death? The ME stated in her press conference that she could not determine the cause of death. That being the case, when was the duct tape wrapped around the head -- before or after death? Couldn't the defense claim that it was all part of the "cover-up story" in case the body was found when Casey was claiming a kidnapping (her original story before it started to unravel) so it could be blamed on the "kidnapper"?

Like Freeda says, there is still room for doubt. Some of the analysts pointed out that in one of the jail tapes played in court today, George and Casey both talked about Caylee in the past tense. Does it mean anything? They kinda gave it a maybe yes, maybe no. I noticed also, that at one time on the tape before they knew why Casey left the conversation abruptly, Cindy told George to "get over here and sit down". He was apparently trying to find out where she went and why. (Casey had to be led out anytime another inmate was brought into the area where Casey was on the jail phone and was then brought back when they were gone.) I still think Cindy was/is very controlling.

What a mess!:loco:

You are right, WHAT A MESS and so incomprehensible to most of us. It seems that Casey's pathology, her obvious inability to be normal and not lie, her probable sociopathy would have been a better defense, but unfortunately conditions like that are hard to prove, and to the lay person appear as severe character flaws. I have no compassion for Casey, nor any understanding either. I am baffled. It must be awful to BE her.

[dillywho]

You are right, WHAT A MESS and so incomprehensible to most of us. It seems that Casey's pathology, her obvious inability to be normal and not lie, her probable sociopathy would have been a better defense, but unfortunately conditions like that are hard to prove, and to the lay person appear as severe character flaws. I have no compassion for Casey, nor any understanding either. I am baffled. It must be awful to BE her.

Unfortunately, in her case, I don't think it is awful to BE her. I don't think she thinks so either. I'm not sure she has that capacity. Figuring her out is like trying to work a Rubic Cube (don't know if that's how to spell it) or one of those tee-thingy's at Cracker Barrel. Wait! Those can be solved....I'm not sure what she's about or if anyone will ever truly know.

Ever have your head feel like someone just dropped a couple of marbles in a can and is rolling the can around?

Death is so much sadder when it involves a child for any reason, but is so much worse when it happens so needlessly.

[Barefoot]

... for negligent homicide, which Casey will apparently say that her father told her could happen - and, remember, he was a police detective, so she would likely have believed his opinion, if he had advised this)

If George did sexually abuse Casey, that would make him, to me, sociopathic and capable of other wrong things.

The one thing that we know for certain is that Casey is a habitual liar. The level of detail she fabricates in her stories is incredible and makes them seem so real. She even seems to believe her own lies. I don't think that any of her stories, including the sexual abuse and drowning, can be believed. And I don't think the jury will believe anything she says if she takes the stand in her own defence. She tells whatever lie she thinks will "save her skin" at the time.

Did you see all the people racing through the halls of the courthouse this morning to get a seat? I just found a channel on Canadian TV that has the court case live all day. I wish I didn't find this case so fascinating. It is similar to the OJ Trial ... it's difficult to not watch it!

[graciegirl]

The one thing that we know for certain is that Casey is a habitual liar. The level of detail she fabricates in her stories is incredible and makes them seem so real. She even seems to believe her own lies. I don't think that any of her stories, including the sexual abuse and drowning, can be believed. And I don't think the jury will believe anything she says if she takes the stand in her own defence. She tells whatever lie she thinks will "save her skin" at the time.

Did you see all the people racing through the halls of the courthouse this morning to get a seat? I just found a channel on Canadian TV that has the court case live all day. I wish I didn't find this case so fascinating. It is similar to the OJ Trial ... it's difficult to not watch it!

I agree Bare. Helene was watching it for the first week and giving me reports and I was drawn in. It is difficult not to watch.

[Barefoot]

This morning they showed a tape of Casey talking to her parents in August 2008. Supposedly two months after Caylee drowned. Casey insists to her parents that all she wants is Caylee's safe return. Casey gets very emotional about her time in jail, and goes on to say "I'm the victim here". In Casey's mind, it is always all about her. And she'll fabricate any story at all to try to save her own skin. I really don't understand how the Defense expects the jurors to believe Casey's stories now about sexual abuse and drowning.

I wonder when it will be decided if Casey is to take the stand. Do they have to notify the Court ahead of time?

[robertj1954]

Yipsters, looks like the state has a case that will be hard to dispute.....Can't wait until Baez "drops a bombshell"??????

I listened to each jail visit tape with her brother, and parents. She knew her daughter was dead and was able to continue the lies. I listened to the taped interviews with the detectives. Why would a jury choose to believe Casey now, even if she did take the stand? The woman is one of the best liars I have ever heard. I feel for her family, she and her attorney threw them under the bus to safe her own pathetic life! That is a callousness and lack of humanity that makes the Death Penalty reasonable for her fate. I pray there is justice given to Caylee.

[Freeda]

What's amazing is that the defense, of course, had seen all of the jail videos that were shown today, well in advance of the trial, and knew that the jury would see them too, and they obviously nevertheless have a plan to offer Casey's drowning/sexual abuse scenario into evidence. I cannot imagine any way other than through Casey testifying that this could come in; it would have to be from someone who witnessed these things, and presumably she is the only one other than George (who has already denied both).

Unless she just throws in the towel, I can't think of anything that Casey could say other than, I assume(??!!), that she and her dad couldn't talk about the 'real' truth (the drowning) in front of Cindy, plus they knew that the jailhouse conversations would become evidence, and so that she and her dad were still 'playacting ' to bolster their concocted account that the nanny had abducted Caylee. ( I did not believe that alot of George's trial testimony was credible, but his demeanor on the jail videotapes certainly makes him seem totally noncomplicit; if he was 'acting' he sure convinced me). Casey will probably also have to say that that is why she chose George for the one visitor she was allowed to see 'off the record', ie, so that they could talk in confidence about what had 'really' happened. I think if/when she says this at trial it will be amazing to watch. Unfortunately for her, she has gotten herself into a place, as much as she has undeniably lied about all sorts of things, that I doubt anything she will testify to would be believed (even if some of it is the truth). But - if other evidence might in some way support her testimony, she still has a chance.

What the jail videotapes did do for Casey is show that both of her parents, and apparently many other people according to what the parents were telling Casey, found Casey loveable, and thought she was a great mother.

After seeing some of this morning's jail videotapes, I still have doubt that Casey intentionally murdered Caylee, although it's certainly possible, because she apparently is at least somewhat crazy and is a diabolical liar (how else could she bear to put her mother - and father, if he actually was noncomplicit, as he claims - through the torment that she did in those jail conversations, pulling every heartstring and guilt trip she could to make them work harder to get her out of jail on bail, and professing over and over how she could just 'feel in her heart' that Caylee was nearby and would be found soon, knowing all along that Caylee was dead) and I don't know much about the subject of craziness. But I'm thinking it's still more probable that Casey - because she seems to at least think (narcissisticly? - is this the correct term that I'm searching for here?) - that she is very smart, and probably she is to some degree, because her family and friends had bought her lies about her job and nanny, etc., for years; and so she probably thought she could outsmart the system - made up an outrageous web of lies, which is now backfiring on her, trying to get out of responsibility for having in some way, probably by oversedating her, accidently killed Caylee. If that's the case, the huge web of lies to cover that up do not turn it into murder 1, but a lesser murder conviction or a manslaughter conviction would be appropriate.

[duffysmom]

In order to understand Casey (and OJ as well) you should read "The Sociopath Next Door" by Harvard Professor and psycotherapist Martha Stout. One in 25 people are sociopaths. It may well change the way you think about behavior. You can order it from Amazon.com.:loco:

[rubicon]

OK the defense has convinced me that Casey is innocent and she should be allowed to get right up from her chair and walk right out of that courtroom
:1rotfl:

[jebartle]

I know his job is to give Casey "due process"...BUT I've got to tell you, his technique for cross-examining makes me NUTS!....Most of the witnesses, I find credible....Why did he find it necessary to dig in the FBI witnesses past in 2000 and tell the jury that she failed some stupid test...Sure wish someone could ask him HOW MANY TIMES HE HAD TO RETAKE HIS BOARDS!

[JenAjd]

This is someone's opinion that I read on Facebook and it could be a possibility'

"Okay, I've been watching this sad case about the little girl in Florida. Here's what I think: I think she accidentally drowned but, the mom was so narsicistic and didn't want anyone to think she let it happen so she tried to cover it up. i do think she's a pathelogical liar and I think she is surprised that her family won't go along with the web of lies she started."

I haven't been watching the trial closely...just the cliff-notes version during the news. It's enough for me as it's a nauseating situation at best, to think about. I cannot imagine a mother doing that then lying about it PLUS the fact she could go for over a month (and beyond) "acting" as though nothing is wrong. It's just beyond me!!!!!

[VillagesFlorida]

This is someone's opinion that I read on Facebook and it could be a possibility'

"Okay, I've been watching this sad case about the little girl in Florida. Here's what I think: I think she accidentally drowned but, the mom was so narsicistic and didn't want anyone to think she let it happen so she tried to cover it up. i do think she's a pathelogical liar and I think she is surprised that her family won't go along with the web of lies she started."

I haven't been watching the trial closely...just the cliff-notes version during the news. It's enough for me as it's a nauseating situation at best, to think about. I cannot imagine a mother doing that then lying about it PLUS the fact she could go for over a month (and beyond) "acting" as though nothing is wrong. It's just beyond me!!!!!

I just don't believe that there would have been a need to put duct tape on Caylee's mouth had she drowned. Absolutely no need whatsoever. She would have already been dead!! In my mind the prosecution's case is going to come down to the duct tape and chloroform. Caylee was going to be silenced one way or another, whether she was having a tantrum and Casey couldn't stand it or whether she wanted to go out to a club and Caylee was in her way of a good time. The whole "drowning in the pool" theory makes no sense based on the evidence found on Caylee's body and the internet searches that were done on chloroform, neck-breaking, etc. They will prove that this WAS premeditated murder in one degree or another. I think that some of Casey's lying behavior has rubbed off on Mr. Baez.....the drowning story reeks of another big lie. I can't imagine this lawyer coming up with such a stupid defense in light of the evidence in this case. Any credibility he may have had with me drowned the day he presented this outrageous story to the jury.

[dillywho]

I just don't believe that there would have been a need to put duct tape on Caylee's mouth had she drowned. Absolutely no need whatsoever. She would have already been dead!! In my mind the prosecution's case is going to come down to the duct tape and chloroform. Caylee was going to be silenced one way or another, whether she was having a tantrum and Casey couldn't stand it or whether she wanted to go out to a club and Caylee was in her way of a good time. The whole "drowning in the pool" theory makes no sense based on the evidence found on Caylee's body and the internet searches that were done on chloroform, neck-breaking, etc. They will prove that this WAS premeditated murder in one degree or another. I think that some of Casey's lying behavior has rubbed off on Mr. Baez.....the drowning story reeks of another big lie. I can't imagine this lawyer coming up with such a stupid defense in light of the evidence in this case. Any credibility he may have had with me drowned the day he presented this outrageous story to the jury.

The only other reason for the duct tape that I can see would be to support the kidnapping story if and when the body was found. Unless it can be proved that she was still alive when it was applied, it very likely was not the cause of death. After autopsy, the medical examiner said in her press conference that the exact cause of death could not be determined but that it was homicide.

I've not only been following this on TV but on Tony Pipitone's blog. He puts out a lot of good information. He seems to be the only reporter without bias either way. (One poster on the blog pointed this out by saying that a reporter on one of the other channels had basically already called her guilty.) One thing he brought out is that in Florida, homicide is not always murder. That surprised me because I thought that that was just another word for murder. Apparently not so.

Another thing he cleared up was the information put out there that it took Baez 8 tries to pass the bar. Not true. He had background issues which had to be resolved which were not very pretty. That is what kept him from getting his license for a long time. A couple of the issues had to do with deliquent child support and bad checks. That was just two mentioned but that there were others as well.

He also pointed out that an attorney cannot "dump" a client just because that attorney finds out the client is guilty. They still have to provide a defense. Dunno and kinda fuzzy as to how that works. What I don't understand is why he didn't just convince her to plead out to a lesser charge concerning accidental death a long time ago unless there really is something else. Someone else (on here, I think) mentioned the lip reader's saying something about Casey telling one of the attorneys that her mother was lying in her testimony to protect George. (Not an exact quote, but that was the gist of the post.) Found it...see Freeda's post, it's #65 on here.

Regardless of how this child died, I do think Casey is at the very core of it. That being said, I think her whole family shares some portion of the why in some way.

[VillagesFlorida]

The only other reason for the duct tape that I can see would be to support the kidnapping story if and when the body was found. Unless it can be proved that she was still alive when it was applied, it very likely was not the cause of death. After autopsy, the medical examiner said in her press conference that the exact cause of death could not be determined but that it was homicide.

I've not only been following this on TV but on Tony Pipitone's blog. He puts out a lot of good information. He seems to be the only reporter without bias either way. (One poster on the blog pointed this out by saying that a reporter on one of the other channels had basically already called her guilty.) One thing he brought out is that in Florida, homicide is not always murder. That surprised me because I thought that that was just another word for murder. Apparently not so.

Another thing he cleared up was the information put out there that it took Baez 8 tries to pass the bar. Not true. He had background issues which had to be resolved which were not very pretty. That is what kept him from getting his license for a long time. A couple of the issues had to do with deliquent child support and bad checks. That was just two mentioned but that there were others as well.

He also pointed out that an attorney cannot "dump" a client just because that attorney finds out the client is guilty. They still have to provide a defense. Dunno and kinda fuzzy as to how that works. What I don't understand is why he didn't just convince her to plead out to a lesser charge concerning accidental death a long time ago unless there really is something else. Someone else (on here, I think) mentioned the lip reader's saying something about Casey telling one of the attorneys that her mother was lying in her testimony to protect George. (Not an exact quote, but that was the gist of the post.) Found it...see Freeda's post, it's #65 on here.

Regardless of how this child died, I do think Casey is at the very core of it. That being said, I think her whole family shares some portion of the why in some way.

Thank you, Dillywho, for your thoughts and other information in your post. There are so many theories, so many allegations, so many lies. Unfortunately, Caylee's little body could not yield any clues as to how she died unless her skull shows some kind of trauma. I think that, while we all have our own ideas as to what may have happened, we will have to wait to see the whole case before the truth will be known. And, even then I doubt that we will ever know the whole story. As far as the lipreading of Casey's responses during the trial, how do we know that any of what she is saying is the truth? This girl doesn't know what the truth is. Even if Casey takes the stand at some point, who is going to believe anything that she says? I have not seen one sign in this girl that she truly misses her daughter. Most of her conversations from jail ended up with the focus on HER, not any wailing or lamenting over the loss of her child. The experts on many of the news programs are calling her a psychopath. Perhaps she belongs in a mental institution for the rest of her life?

[Barefoot]

I listened to each jail visit tape with her brother, and parents. She knew her daughter was dead and was able to continue the lies. I listened to the taped interviews with the detectives. Why would a jury choose to believe Casey now, even if she did take the stand?

The woman is one of the best liars I have ever heard. I feel for her family, she and her attorney threw them under the bus to safe her own pathetic life! That is a callousness and lack of humanity that makes the Death Penalty reasonable for her fate. I pray there is justice given to Caylee.

Robert, I agree. Even if Casey takes the stand, how could the Jury ever decide to believe a habitual liar? It is frightening to see Casey's total indifference to the loss of her daughter and the suffering of her parents.

[graciegirl]

Robert, I agree. Even if Casey takes the stand, how could the Jury ever decide to believe a habitual liar? It is frightening to see Casey's total indifference to the loss of her daughter and the suffering of her parents.

I think you're right, Bare. So sad. So very unusual to see someone without remorse over the death of their child.

[Shimpy]

Is this going to be another surprise "O.J. verdict" ?

[jblum315]

It very well could be

[jebartle]

to discredit all state witnesses but hasn't Baez stepped over the line!

[dillywho]

When Dr. Vass testified (all day!) today, why was he allowed to go on and on and on everytime he opened his mouth? Why was he not admonished to just answer the questions asked instead of all the rambling he did? Other witnesses have been very restricted in this respect. Baez did try to rein him in a couple of times by telling him to just answer "yes" or "no". Even then, he persisted. In his cross, Baez did score a point or two toward creating some doubt.

I also did not understand why he was not admonished for the extraneous remarks and laughing about "almost jumping backwards" when asked about the smell when he opened the can. By not just saying that there was an overwhelming smell of what he knows or recognizes as human decomposition, it came across as very prejudicial antics. Also by being so deeply technical, he could well have cost the prosecution some points just by wearing out the jury.

Jumping ahead, wouldn't it be more prudent for the state to take the death penalty off the table since it will be an automatic appeal? That is already a given. Right now, the prosecution are working their tails off to ward off an appeal and the defense are working theirs off building grounds for one. With appeals, this could go on forever.

[Barefoot]

When Dr. Vass testified (all day!) today, why was he allowed to go on and on and on everytime he opened his mouth? Why was he not admonished to just answer the questions asked instead of all the rambling he did? Other witnesses have been very restricted in this respect. Baez did try to rein him in a couple of times by telling him to just answer "yes" or "no". Even then, he persisted. In his cross, Baez did score a point or two toward creating some doubt.

I also did not understand why he was not admonished for the extraneous remarks and laughing about "almost jumping backwards" when asked about the smell when he opened the can. By not just saying that there was an overwhelming smell of what he knows or recognizes as human decomposition, it came across as very prejudicial antics. Also by being so deeply technical, he could well have cost the prosecution some points just by wearing out the jury.

Jumping ahead, wouldn't it be more prudent for the state to take the death penalty off the table since it will be an automatic appeal? That is already a given. Right now, the prosecution are working their tails off to ward off an appeal and the defense are working theirs off building grounds for one. With appeals, this could go on forever.

I actually thought Dr. Vass did a pretty good job today. I think his nervousness showed when he made a few extraneous remarks and laughed a few times which somehow seemed imappropriate because of the seriousness of the charges. Still, the man is the Director of the Body Farm, and I think he came across as a credible professional. I think Baez had his best day yet, but that isn't saying much. For the most part, I think that Baez is out of his depth. But he did manage to make a few good points today and cast a little doubt. I think that overall the day definitely went to the Prosecution. I noticed that Baez's objections were overruled quite often by the Judge. (I think that the Judge is doing an excellent job). Apparently they found a syringe in the trunk that we haven't heard about yet. It's a slow and tedious process to build a case on this type of evidence.

The interesting part will be to see if the Defence changes their story. I never thought I'd feel sorry for Casey's parents, but I do. I think that Casey has made up lie after lie to save her skin and thrown her dad under the bus in the process. Unbelievable. I still think that Casey is a demented woman and her daughter was just the sweetest little girl. It breaks my heart everytime I see her pictures, but I can't stop watching.

[jdsl1998]

Is this being televised all over the u.s.?

[CTgolfer]

Here is a pretty good definition of a narcissistic pathological liar (ignore the reference to politics).

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/05/narcissism-pathological-lying-and.html

From my observations of the trial, I do feel this is what Casey Anthony suffers from. However, this does not lessen what has happened to her daughter. First degree murder, in my opinion, should not even be a consideration. Aggravated manslaugter does sound plausible.

It's very sad that someone in her family didn't recognize Casey's behaviorial disorder before any possibility of escalation to a child's death occurred.... very sad.

[graciegirl]

Here is a pretty good definition of a narcissistic pathological liar (ignore the reference to politics).

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/05/narcissism-pathological-lying-and.html

From my observations of the trial, I do feel this is what Casey Anthony suffers from. However, this does not lessen what has happened to her daughter. First degree murder, in my opinion, should not even be a consideration. Aggravated manslaugter does sound plausible.

It's very sad that someone in her family didn't recognize Casey's behaviorial disorder before any possibility of escalation to a child's death occurred.... very sad.

You know I have thought about that too, and I think Casey is quite bright, even if she didn't finish high school, and she is able to read people and manipulate them and has been able to do that for a long time. People who have mental disorders or personality dysfunctions such as these are not easy to spot, even by educators or their family. Think of Ted Bundy. I am sure her family was panicking about her lying and stealing money from close friends and family, but probably did not see that she was capable of killing her daughter. It isn't as if she was seeing things or breaking into peoples houses and I am sure that her stories were that she was borrowing the money or some such evasive foolishness. I found it hard to keep focused when she was giving the detectives the run around. Imagine if it is your child, who you WANT to believe.

I think George and Cindy could not believe that this really BAD person was raised just like her brother with quite different results.

It is really blowing holes in how I can relate this to ANYTHING. She simply does not care about anyone but herself.

[jblum315]

Is this being televised all over the u.s.?

No

[eweissenbach]

Is this being televised all over the u.s.?

I am in Missouri and it is being televised here on TRU tv which was formerly Court TV. I presume anyone that gets TRU tv on cable or satellite would get the same feed.

[graciegirl]

I am in Missouri and it is being televised here on TRU tv which was formerly Court TV. I presume anyone that gets TRU tv on cable or satellite would get the same feed.

We have direct TV and we get it on TRU also, until 3:00, and then it is on HLN. (sister stations)

[rubicon]

Well were in the forensic stage of this trial and currently hearing testimony from an Orange county olice officer who is atached to the K-9 unit. He is testifying about a dog trained to uncover cadvers............I am watching this on Eyewitness news (9) for Comcast HD its channel 431. Excellent analysis from an experienced Judge (Bill Schafer) .

Mention was made that testimony will be coming forth that the duct tape over Caylee's mouth was placed there while she was still alive. This observation is based on the position of the mandible. God we really don't want to believe that do we?

The jury is back from lunch...catch you all later

[jebartle]

must tell you that our dachshund alerts us to road kill (mostly frogs that are mashed beyond recognition, and his alert sign, he rolls all over stinky smell...Thought I needed to lighten up this thread a little!:girlneener:

[raynan]

I know it's on TRU TV in MA which used to be CourtTV. I'm watching on 434 which is FOX.

[Barefoot]

Is this being televised all over the u.s.?

I'm in Canada getting live trial coverage on television as well as via the Internet.

[rubicon]

Some folks are upset because this trial has pre-emptied there shows. for me, anything that get The View moved to late night TV is cool.

[Barefoot]

Some folks are upset because this trial has pre-emptied there shows. for me, anything that get The View moved to late night TV is cool.

Hijack, I apologize.
Rubicon, The View has been moved?

[sandybill2]

must tell you that our dachshund alerts us to road kill (mostly frogs that are mashed beyond recognition, and his alert sign, he rolls all over stinky smell...Thought I needed to lighten up this thread a little!:girlneener:

Thanks for the "lightening up"---think we all need it--especially those (me included) that feel the need to watch this as it unfolds---never thought I would be one of "those." We had a black lab mix that would find whatever was "stinky"---roll in it and then come home--his head held high---as though he was a returning warrior from a battle--and we would be happy to see him--- NOT--- Back to reality--my heart breaks for a life unlived---such a beautiful being--- we will never know what happened---only those that can tell us are Casey--and you know how to take what she says and little Caylee---who will never be able to tell us. I just hope she didn't leave this world thinking that the one who should have loved her the most--didn't!

[graciegirl]

There is a juror, number four, who did not want to be on the jury (who does??) and says she can't pass judgement on anyone, who seems to be on the side of the defense.

I just want justice for that child.

I think even the grandparents can see their daughter is guilty.

[dillywho]

"I believe the prosecution's theory is that she used chloroform and duct tape to keep the child quiet so she could go out dancing and partying. I haven't followed the trial too closely, but early on with Cindy Anthony on the stand, the defense pointed out that Cindy received six phone calls at work from Casey on June 16th in a 15 minute period around 4pm.... something that was not normal for Casey to do. I have not heard any more about this, but if this is fact, in my opinion, this could be the timeframe when something happened to the child. This would put the timeframe of the "incident" way before dancing and partying at night."

I cut and pasted this from another thread on this same subject on TOTV (hope that's not illegal) and could explain why her cell phone pinged from the area of the house that afternoon. Maybe it was an accident and when she couldn't reach her mother, she totally panicked and the whole thing spiraled out of control. I, for one, don't think she's anywhere near all right which would explain her bizarre behavior since. If (and that's a big IF) this is what happened, it's kinda like a child that breaks something, hides it to cover up, and carries on as if it didn't happen, then becomes convinced over time that it really didn't happen. She initially said that she had been searching for Caylee herself, which we know now to be one of the many lies, because she didn't want to have to deal with her mother. Lee even testified that his mother had made threats to Casey about being an unfit mother, totally opposite to what Cindy said about her in her testimony.

I'm convinced that she is guilty of criminal behavior. I am not convinced any of that behavior is Murder One.

I really hope this trial will lead to some changes in FL law so that people can no longer be tried and convicted in the media. Evidence should be reserved for trial only. Only then do I think anyone can get anything that even resembles a fair trial.

[GatorFan]

Agree with you Dillywho.

[Freeda]

All I can say at this point is it's confusing (and any confusion favors the defense). Casey's going to have to do alot of explaining plus produce supportive evidence, or draw upon evidence already produced which may be supportive; since I don't believe that any account she gives will be believed at face value. I think that the death was probably accidental (though probably still criminal in nature, ie, reckless homicide, etc), and then was made to look like an abduction/murder by the (nonexistent, also fabricated) nanny, as a coverup, to try to avoid any possible prosecution. When we hear the testimony about the duct tape and the remains, that might be key to deciding accident versus premeditated. She apparently poorly disposed of the body (certainly I think she incorrectly thought that however she had disposed of it, it would never be found - what a shock this must have been for her!) and hoped it would become an unsolved missing child case. I think she must have kept the remains in her trunk for days trying to figure out what to do.

[CMANN]

There is a juror, number four, who did not want to be on the jury (who does??) and says she can't pass judgement on anyone, who seems to be on the side of the defense.

I just want justice for that child.

I think even the grandparents can see their daughter is guilty.

guilty of what? If this is the best case that the prosecution has I think they should all be fired.

In my opinion they have not presented any evidence of a murder.

C

[Barefoot]

guilty of what? If this is the best case that the prosecution has I think they should all be fired.

Guilty of what? She now admits that she lied to everyone concerned, including the police about what happened. Guilty of fabricating a story about a kidnapping so that police would use their resources to search for a non existent person. Guilty of either murdering her daughter, or covering up an accidental death. Guilty of driving around for days with the decaying body of her daughter in the trunk while she decided where to dump her.

[red tail]

"I believe the prosecution's theory is that she used chloroform and duct tape to keep the child quiet so she could go out dancing and partying. I haven't followed the trial too closely, but early on with Cindy Anthony on the stand, the defense pointed out that Cindy received six phone calls at work from Casey on June 16th in a 15 minute period around 4pm.... something that was not normal for Casey to do. I have not heard any more about this, but if this is fact, in my opinion, this could be the timeframe when something happened to the child. This would put the timeframe of the "incident" way before dancing and partying at night."

I cut and pasted this from another thread on this same subject on TOTV (hope that's not illegal) and could explain why her cell phone pinged from the area of the house that afternoon. Maybe it was an accident and when she couldn't reach her mother, she totally panicked and the whole thing spiraled out of control. I, for one, don't think she's anywhere near all right which would explain her bizarre behavior since. If (and that's a big IF) this is what happened, it's kinda like a child that breaks something, hides it to cover up, and carries on as if it didn't happen, then becomes convinced over time that it really didn't happen. She initially said that she had been searching for Caylee herself, which we know now to be one of the many lies, because she didn't want to have to deal with her mother. Lee even testified that his mother had made threats to Casey about being an unfit mother, totally opposite to what Cindy said about her in her testimony.

I'm convinced that she is guilty of criminal behavior. I am not convinced any of that behavior is Murder One.

I really hope this trial will lead to some changes in FL law so that people can no longer be tried and convicted in the media. Evidence should be reserved for trial only. Only then do I think anyone can get anything that even resembles a fair trial.

it looks to me that folks on TOTV have pretty much found her guilty using the media which is all they have for their info! one should remember that things are not always as they appear. i think before making condemnations we should wait and see what the evidence shows. the defense hasnt even been on yet!

[rubicon]

guilty of what? If this is the best case that the prosecution has I think they should all be fired.

In my opinion they have not presented any evidence of a murder.

C

Are we watching the same trial?

[jackz]

guilty of what? If this is the best case that the prosecution has I think they should all be fired.

In my opinion they have not presented any evidence of a murder.

C

No evidence of murder?

Does anyone think that Caylee put the tape over her mouth?

[graciegirl]

The testimony today was grueling. I cannot think of a greater hell than to listen to minute details of a corpse that is your baby and to know you killed her. Casey Anthony became sick. I was sick at heart and couldn't watch it for very long.

In searching the web, I came up with this site that discusses sociopathy in children. I wonder if Casey had these behaviors....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_signs_that_would_identify_a_child_as_bei ng_at_risk_for_becoming_a_sociopath

[dillywho]

The testimony today was grueling. I cannot think of a greater hell than to listen to minute details of a corpse that is your baby and to know you killed her. Casey Anthony became sick. I was sick at heart and couldn't watch it for very long.

In searching the web, I came up with this site that discusses sociopathy in children. I wonder if Casey had these behaviors....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_signs_that_would_identify_a_child_as_bei ng_at_risk_for_becoming_a_sociopath

What an excellent read. That's very enlightening and seems as if it could possibly fit in this instance. It could explain a lot. Maybe some of this will come out when the defense takes their turn.

The whole situation is so sad; the death of a precious child and the total destruction of an entire family. What is sad as well, are all the hateful remarks and screams of guilty before all is said and done. How can others be so cruel based only on all the media hype? I just hope those people never have the opportunity to serve on a jury.

[EdV]

And how about this one GG? Lot's of 'Yups' in there.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

[CMANN]

Guilty of what? She now admits that she lied to everyone concerned, including the police about what happened. Guilty of fabricating a story about a kidnapping so that police would use their resources to search for a non existent person. Guilty of either murdering her daughter, or covering up an accidental death. Guilty of driving around for days with the decaying body of her daughter in the trunk while she decided where to dump her.

She lied. Covering up an accidental death? Could be. Murder in the 1st? I said that they have presented nothing to prove this. It is what they charged. Are they wasting our money to advance their carrers? I think we should expect more.

C

[CMANN]

No evidence of murder?

Does anyone think that Caylee put the tape over her mouth?


it may be impossible to prove whether the tape was placed over her mouth pre-or postmortem.

C

[CMANN]

When they strap her down on the table I would like to know that she is guilty of murder, not that she is on the table because she is despicable and hated.

Is that too much to expect?

C

[Schaumburger]

Only served on a jury once about 20 years ago, and it was a civil trial, but it did involve an accidental death. I still wonder occasionally what happened to the family of the man who died.

I can't imagine being a juror in this trial or any trial involving the death of a child. I think of the little girl who was about 5 years old who disappeared in from her home in FL maybe 18 months ago (I don't believe she had the most stable home life according to the news reports). I didn't hear if she was ever found.

[natickdan]

Watching this trial has been truly addictive for me. It's going to be interesting to see how Casey's attorney, Jose Baez, moves forward when he starts presenting his case.

I was so baffled by Baez's opening statement claiming Caylee died by drowning and that Casey's father was complicit not only in the cover-up, but that he both verbally and sexually abused Casey.

I can't recall a more addictive case to watch since the OJ case. In this case, however, I hope that justice is served.

[EdV]

If you would like some additional background information on the Anthony family, here’s an interesting thread I found that is an exchange of questions and answers from a person who claims to be Cindy Anthony’s estranged brother Rick Plesea. This exchange took place on August 18th 2008 and is actually a condensed version of another much longer thread from another forum.

I believe this person is in fact Cindy’s brother because he talks about Casey coming to his wedding pregnant and denying it, which I don't believe had been made public at the time of his posting.

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?291278-Cindy-Anthony-s-Brother-Speaks

[Mudder]

I think Casey is finally feeling and showing the stress she's brought on herself. I hope the trial will not have to be stopped due to an anxiety illness on her part. I have to say it doesn't bother me in the least to see her suffering. Baez is a joke that is no longer funny. It's all so sad.

[red tail]

I think Casey is finally feeling and showing the stress she's brought on herself. I hope the trial will not have to be stopped due to an anxiety illness on her part. I have to say it doesn't bother me in the least to see her suffering. Baez is a joke that is no longer funny. It's all so sad.

if it doesnt bother a person to see someone in that much pain they could well be as big a monster as she is purported to be

[Mudder]

Casey's mental pain is brought on by her knowing just what happened to her daughter. What Casey is going thru is mild compared to what her little daughter must have gone thru, Caylee had no chance for a life, Casey still does. To call me a monster seems like misplaced anger.

[jblum315]

This trial is looking more and more like a repeat of OJ

[Barefoot]

No evidence of murder?

Does anyone think that Caylee put the tape over her mouth?

Absolutely. I think that the heart sticker was Casey's way of 'taking care' of Caylee.

[robertj1954]

Please explain how this trial is getting more like the OJ trial?:confused: If you are referring to the media attention on the case then I would agree. But that would be the only comparison in my opinion.

The judge is controlling the courtroom, not the attorneys. As a former resident of Pinellas County. I can tell you that the county's residents take jury duty very seriously and in almost all cases of murder, they reach a verdict based on the evidence not emotion, unlike a Los Angeles jury. Friday's testimony by expert witnesses, including Dr. G the Medical Examiner, pretty much scuttled the defense contention that it was an accidental drowning. Combine that with the computer testimony and it is looking like Murder 1 for Casey Anthony and justice for little Caylee Anthony.

[jblum315]

[QUOTE=robertj1954;361495]Please explain how this trial is getting more like the OJ trial?:confused: If you are referring to the media attention on the case then I would agree. But that would be the only comparison in my opinion.

Was referring to the media circus aspect, of course

[ceejay]

if it doesnt bother a person to see someone in that much pain they could well be as big a monster as she is purported to be

About 25 years ago, there was an article in the paper about a death row inmate. He was being put to death by lethal injection when something went wrong and he actually had to "suffer" a bit before he died.

This man had tied a young mother to a tree and proceeded to whip her and beat her until she was unrecognizable and, on top of that, raped her repeatedly until she was dead.

Did I feel any compassion or pity for him and what he was going through during his botched injection? Heck no. And anyone who knows me would not consider me a monster.

And that's exactly how I feel about Casey Anthony.

[jackz]

Absolutely. I think that the heart sticker was Casey's way of 'taking care' of Caylee.

Barefoot, I agree with you that CASEY put the tape on Caylee's mouth but my question was: Does anyone think that CAYLEE put the tape on her mouth in response to the previous poster saying that the prosecution was not proving murder in the case. My bottom line, the tape was placed on Caylee's mouth as part of the murder.

[Barefoot]

Barefoot, I agree with you that CASEY put the tape on Caylee's mouth but my question was: Does anyone think that CAYLEE put the tape on her mouth in response to the previous poster saying that the prosecution was not proving murder in the case. My bottom line, the tape was placed on Caylee's mouth as part of the murder.

I also think that the tape was placed on Caylee's mouth and that it contributed to her death. However Casey is obviously going to blame her father for the tape. Happy Fathers Day George.

[dillywho]

I guess the thing that bothers me the most about this case is the number of people that are declaring her guilty before the prosecution has finished presenting their case, much less before the defense even has the opportunity to present theirs. So much for everyone being entitled to a fair and impartial trial. There is nothing fair or impartial about that. I only hope and pray the jury isn't doing the same thing.

This is why there are two parts to a trial. Maybe she did deliberately kill her child, maybe it was an accident and she panicked, maybe she covered/is covering for someone else. That is the whole purpose of a trial...finding out as much as humanly possible about guilt or innocence.

Just like everone else, I have opinions. I also have many, many questions and am willing to wait for, hopefully, the answers to those questions.

I remember the trial of Cullen Davis in Texas. It was moved from Ft. Worth to Amarillo on a change of venue because he was such a well known oil tycoon in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area and it was determined that as such, he would never get a fair trial in Ft. Worth. ("Racehorse" Haynes was his attorney.) He was found not guilty. (Not guilty is different than an acquittal.) One of my friends was on the jury and told us afterwards that they felt that he probably was guilty, but they could not convict on their feelings. They determined that the state had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they could not render a verdict of guilty because of the state's failure to build a tight case.

On another note, I find it totally digusting that people would fight and act like the very animals they want to accuse Casey of being, just to get into the gallery. Why don't they simply print numbered tickets, pass them out to those waiting, and then pick so many numbers with only those being granted admission (lottery, if you will)?

[dillywho]

Please explain how this trial is getting more like the OJ trial?:confused: If you are referring to the media attention on the case then I would agree. But that would be the only comparison in my opinion.

The judge is controlling the courtroom, not the attorneys. As a former resident of Pinellas County. I can tell you that the county's residents take jury duty very seriously and in almost all cases of murder, they reach a verdict based on the evidence not emotion, unlike a Los Angeles jury. Friday's testimony by expert witnesses, including Dr. G the Medical Examiner, pretty much scuttled the defense contention that it was an accidental drowning. Combine that with the computer testimony and it is looking like Murder 1 for Casey Anthony and justice for little Caylee Anthony.

I disagree with Dr. G. on her statement that there would be no reason to place duct tape on a dead body. If the child was already dead (by whatever means, we don't know yet how or when for sure), then Casey could have placed it there in an effort to support her kidnapping story if/when Caylee's body was found. Remember, that was her story to begin with when she finally had to admit that Caylee was "missing".

One of the legal analysts, actually a judge himself, said that he was disappointed to say the least at Dr. G.'s testimony because of her obvious bias. He felt that she was somewhat less than professional as an expert witness because of it. He said that he had never seen her do that and that he had seen her testify on numerous cases.

[collie1228]

Not guilty is different than an acquittal? I'm unfamiliar with Florida law, but the legal dictionary I referenced said, "An acquittal is a verdict of not guilty from the jury or judge that decided the case." I agree that a hung jury is quite different from an acquittal, but can you explain your comment dillywho?

[PennBF]

The problem I have with this trial is that 95% of the testimony so far is to inflame the jury. Not one single piece of evidence that proves she had murdered the baby, not one single piece of evidence to prove the exact time/date and not one single piece of evidence as to where she died.!!
It is not important how we may feel regarding her guilt or innocence. It is whethe there is proof beyond a resonable doubt. All of the State Attorney's should be fired for spending this much of the public money without proof.
As a very simple point: This morning they showed the bedroom of Casey as it was 7 months before the alleged crime. Can someone tell me how this supports anything regarding the 3 points above.
Not one scientific expert has testified what caused her death. A lot of speculation but no proof. The worst of this bunch was the Medical Examiner
yesterday..She got away with screeming her opinion BUT no facts. She was pretty simbolic of the terrible approach by the States Attorney's..It also appears like the defense attorney is being beat up by the
court as most of his objections are sustained while the offense is allowed to
proceed. Where the heck is the American principle that you are not guilt unless proven otherwise and the guage is the "law"..:confused:

[dillywho]

Not guilty is different than an acquittal? I'm unfamiliar with Florida law, but the legal dictionary I referenced said, "An acquittal is a verdict of not guilty from the jury or judge that decided the case." I agree that a hung jury is quite different from an acquittal, but can you explain your comment dillywho?

Collie, this is kinda long and for that I apologize. (I tried to post a link but couldn't figure out how to do it.) You are right that by definition, acquittal and not guilty are the same. This article says more what I was trying to say about the difference though. This was written by a Ft. Worth lawyer.

Not Guilty vs. Innocent


When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if your innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.

In a criminal case you are either "guilty" or "not guilty". When the jury returns with it's verdict it will be one or the other. This is not much ado about nothing. My goal in a criminal trial is to get the jury to say at the end "not guilty" not "we find you innocent". The reason of course is that the law places the burden of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the government. You don't have to prove your innocence. (like you could even do that). The person accused has no burden of proof at all. In fact the trial starts with one fact absolutely established, that the defendant is presumed "not guilty". The government must prove guilt to the highest standard the law allows and if they don't the jury has no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty".

A criminal trial is not about what you as the defendant can prove. It is about what the government can prove. It has been my experience that I have won many more trials when I put on no witnesses or evidence. Instead I shot holes in the government's case and pointed out how weak or how little evidence they produced. Often by putting on witnesses and evidence for the defense, the jury gets confused that the trial is not a battle of who has the most or best evidence. They think, "well we believed that the state's evidence was better or they had more evidence than the defense". We will lose that battle every time. When no evidence is produced by the accused, the law about who bears the burden of proof is underlined for the jury. The court will tell the jury that the law does not impose any burden on the defendant to produce any testimony or evidence. The judge instructs the jury that they must accept that as the law before they begin their deliberations.

So why is this distinction not well known? If you listen to the news media's coverage of a trial, you will hear them talk of innocence. They will say a jury found someone "innocent" in court today. No they did not! They found someone "not guilty". If you are concerned about innocence, then see a priest, rabbi, or clergyman. If you have been charged by the government with a crime and they seek to take away your liberty, you should be concerned about being found "Not Guilty" and see a criminal defense lawyer!

[jebartle]

A piece here (near the skull)and a piece there (gas can and taping up poster for missing Caylee)!....Hmmmm!

[VillagesFlorida]

A piece here (near the skull)and a piece there (gas can and taping up poster for missing Caylee)!....Hmmmm!

I imagine that there were a lot of posters put up and I guess one could go through a roll of duct tape pretty quickly that way.

[VillagesFlorida]

This trial is looking more and more like a repeat of OJ

Let's just hope that THIS time the "glove will fit" someone.

[collie1228]

dillywho, thanks for the explanation. Seems like semantics to me - I think if you polled lawyers who perform opening statements (perform being the operative word), I think that it would be nearly unanimous that they tell the jury their client is "innocent" more than they use the term "not guilty". I agree with the analysis, that courts don't find people innocent. But my question related to "acquittal", which is a term of art as well, and from my reading I believe it is equivalent to not guilty, and means that the government may not try the defendant again for the same offense.

[rubicon]

Collie, this is kinda long and for that I apologize. (I tried to post a link but couldn't figure out how to do it.) You are right that by definition, acquittal and not guilty are the same. This article says more what I was trying to say about the difference though. This was written by a Ft. Worth lawyer.

Not Guilty vs. Innocent


When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if your innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.

In a criminal case you are either "guilty" or "not guilty". When the jury returns with it's verdict it will be one or the other. This is not much ado about nothing. My goal in a criminal trial is to get the jury to say at the end "not guilty" not "we find you innocent". The reason of course is that the law places the burden of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the government. You don't have to prove your innocence. (like you could even do that). The person accused has no burden of proof at all. In fact the trial starts with one fact absolutely established, that the defendant is presumed "not guilty". The government must prove guilt to the highest standard the law allows and if they don't the jury has no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty".

A criminal trial is not about what you as the defendant can prove. It is about what the government can prove. It has been my experience that I have won many more trials when I put on no witnesses or evidence. Instead I shot holes in the government's case and pointed out how weak or how little evidence they produced. Often by putting on witnesses and evidence for the defense, the jury gets confused that the trial is not a battle of who has the most or best evidence. They think, "well we believed that the state's evidence was better or they had more evidence than the defense". We will lose that battle every time. When no evidence is produced by the accused, the law about who bears the burden of proof is underlined for the jury. The court will tell the jury that the law does not impose any burden on the defendant to produce any testimony or evidence. The judge instructs the jury that they must accept that as the law before they begin their deliberations.

So why is this distinction not well known? If you listen to the news media's coverage of a trial, you will hear them talk of innocence. They will say a jury found someone "innocent" in court today. No they did not! They found someone "not guilty". If you are concerned about innocence, then see a priest, rabbi, or clergyman. If you have been charged by the government with a crime and they seek to take away your liberty, you should be concerned about being found "Not Guilty" and see a criminal defense lawyer!

dillywho...I am more familar with civil cases where the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff and in thoses cases the casual link relationship of harm to damages. I very much appreciate the aforementioned explanation because it supports the time and money the State had to go through to try this case. A baby is dead. the las person to be with that baby was her mother. Her mother ignorded her baby's absence for 31 days. When confronted she lied and made up stories about people and places. The baby was found down the block from he mother's home with various materials ,etc that have a strong potential as coming from the mother's home. Experts have testified to the smell and other evidence of decomposition. As to motive we recently heard that Casey's mother was trying to gain custody of her grand daughter and Casey's response to her brother Lee was that that "B" won't get my baby. Casey's behavior of lying, stealing , etc may indicate some mental issues...not sure at this point. However, it is clear she was spoiled, use to having her way and very very unresponsible.

It pains me to even think that a mother could harm he baby but this is very strong circumstantial evidence. So I applaud the State for their efforts because their burden of proof is so great that it will take the gargantuan effort they are making to get a guilty verdict on any of the possible counts.

Someone mentioned a comparison to the OJ case. I don't beleieve they are anyway alike except I pray that when the jury comes in they say guilty or innocent and not " not guilty" because I hate to think that this young mother got away with murder.

[Pturner]

dillywho, thanks for the explanation. Seems like semantics to me - I think if you polled lawyers who perform opening statements (perform being the operative word), I think that it would be nearly unanimous that they tell the jury their client is "innocent" more than they use the term "not guilty". I agree with the analysis, that courts don't find people innocent. But my question related to "acquittal", which is a term of art as well, and from my reading I believe it is equivalent to not guilty, and means that the government may not try the defendant again for the same offense.

Hi Collie,
I used to cover criminal court for a newspaper. I don't know whether attorneys ever say it, but I have never heard a defense attorney describe his client as "innocent" rather than "not guilty". On the other hand, yes a "not guilty" verdict is an acquittal. There is no such thing in U. S. courts as as a verdict of "innocent".

[rubicon]

Hi Collie,
I used to cover criminal court for a newspaper. I don't know whether attorneys ever say it, but I have never heard a defense attorney describe his client as "innocent" rather than "not guilty". On the other hand, yes a "not guilty" verdict is an acquittal. There is no such thing in U. S. courts as as a verdict of "innocent".

Hi PTurner, I have heard defense attorneys claim their clients are innocent. Perhaps its like the trash/garbage controversey overtaking this trial Haaa

[graciegirl]

Hi PTurner, I have heard defense attorneys claim their clients are innocent. Perhaps its like the trash/garbage controversy overtaking this trial Haaa

Yes...The trash/garbage controversy and Casey laughed. She laughed.

I was shocked. They were talking about the larvae of the insects that fed on her daughters decomposing body.

I don't understand how a human could be like that.

[jebartle]

Thought FBI testimony was suppressed by Judge BUT state continued to question him on this subject....Very confusing....Guess state will finish Tues. or Wed....THEN defense will TRY to explain OPENING!....Not sure state has a Murder One case but she should be in jail for awhile!

[PennBF]

F.Lee Bailey said in his book,"It is not important that you are innocent. It is important that you can prove it to 12 jurors."
In this case no one can identify how she died, when she died and where she died. There has been no proof of these reqirements and therefore it is becoming like the old "hanging" in the west when these questions were not important, just the "feelings" and "emotions". Our country was not built on the old west but rather on justice through proof "beyond a doubt".
It has become a great shell game by the State as they have no proof to the above 3 requirements and it is a real danger when people ignore them and replace them with emotion and feelings.
She may be the biggest liar that ever walked on the earth, the most selfish
mother ever to live, a true sociopath, etc. But it is still necessary to prove she was responsible in some way for the child's death and that has not been done. Is it possible that it would be terrible for her to go free? Maybe..But if in the process the our freedoms and justice are protected then let her walk.
Hopefully, we will stop the "hanging" emotions and look for proof beyond a doubt and I have seen that yet by the state.

[dillywho]

F.Lee Bailey said in his book,"It is not important that you are innocent. It is important that you can prove it to 12 jurors."
In this case no one can identify how she died, when she died and where she died. There has been no proof of these reqirements and therefore it is becoming like the old "hanging" in the west when these questions were not important, just the "feelings" and "emotions". Our country was not built on the old west but rather on justice through proof "beyond a doubt".
It has become a great shell game by the State as they have no proof to the above 3 requirements and it is a real danger when people ignore them and replace them with emotion and feelings.
She may be the biggest liar that ever walked on the earth, the most selfish
mother ever to live, a true sociopath, etc. But it is still necessary to prove she was responsible in some way for the child's death and that has not been done. Is it possible that it would be terrible for her to go free? Maybe..But if in the process the our freedoms and justice are protected then let her walk.
Hopefully, we will stop the "hanging" emotions and look for proof beyond a doubt and I have seen that yet by the state.

Your post seems well thought out and right on. The State has proved (proven?) nothing... lots of theories, yes, but not proof. As you said, feeling and emotions are not proof, either. Even some of the news "analysts" who are or have been judges themselves have said much the same thing. Where's the proof? Caylee could well have drowned and Casey panicked, Casey could have used chloroform, or tape, or whatever...she is the only one who really knows what happened.

Does it look bad for her? Absolutely, but then only the prosecution has had a turn. The one expert testifying today seemed one of the most credible because he said that everything he presented is not absolute.

Remember when I said that she could have placed the tape on her child to support her original story of kidnapping? At the time she came up with that story, she first told it to her mother and it grew from there. She couldn't have given her attorneys a different story at that point because she didn't even have attorneys. She had no need for them.

Why didn't the State verify if and when George was at work on the 16th? They did it for the computer searches. Why didn't Cindy take Casey's calls that afternoon? She testified that the number of calls in a row was unusual. If so, why did she not think there might be a problem? Did she answer them or just see or know that it was Casey calling and choose to ignore them? The State contends that cell phone records show that Casey was still home or near there most of the afternoon around the time she was making those calls.

If the stories are true about her mother not "allowing" her to put Caylee up for adoption, how is that? She was of age and her mother couldn't have done a thing about it if she had. With the open adoptions now, the grandparents could still have been a part of her life. All the tension between Casey and her family couldn't have been good for Caylee. Couldn't the rest of the family see that? Maybe Cindy thought that by forcing Casey to keep Caylee, she would see the light and change. That's as effective as having a child either one of a couple doesn't really want just to hold a marriage together.

Too, too many questions still and not nearly enough answers. We just need to let the system work all the way through. That hasn't happened, yet.

[graciegirl]

F.Lee Bailey said in his book,"It is not important that you are innocent. It is important that you can prove it to 12 jurors."
In this case no one can identify how she died, when she died and where she died. There has been no proof of these reqirements and therefore it is becoming like the old "hanging" in the west when these questions were not important, just the "feelings" and "emotions". Our country was not built on the old west but rather on justice through proof "beyond a doubt".
It has become a great shell game by the State as they have no proof to the above 3 requirements and it is a real danger when people ignore them and replace them with emotion and feelings.
She may be the biggest liar that ever walked on the earth, the most selfish
mother ever to live, a true sociopath, etc. But it is still necessary to prove she was responsible in some way for the child's death and that has not been done. Is it possible that it would be terrible for her to go free? Maybe..But if in the process the our freedoms and justice are protected then let her walk.
Hopefully, we will stop the "hanging" emotions and look for proof beyond a doubt and I have seen that yet by the state.

Most men do not think Casey Anthony will be found guilty and most women think she will...I read that somewhere recently.

It is again, the difference in how male and female absorb information and make judgements every day. Men seek concrete evidence and material information and women study the demeanor, personality, actions, body language and facial expressions and motive of people. Each is better than the other in this form of information gathering, and each thinks the others way is not as good.

[PennBF]

Graciegirl, you make my point when you say:"women study the demeanor, personality, actions, body language and facial expressions and motive of people".
No one should ever be convicted of a crime, regardless of the seriousness
of the crime on demeanor, personality, body language or facial attributes.
That is not in compliance with the law of the land which is based on proof.
These are not proof but feelings. It does not say in the Constitution that if you feel someone is guilty you should convict them.
I understand your points but feel they seriously divert attention from the
need for absolute proof. :wave:

[graciegirl]

Graciegirl, you make my point when you say:"women study the demeanor, personality, actions, body language and facial expressions and motive of people".
No one should ever be convicted of a crime, regardless of the seriousness
of the crime on demeanor, personality, body language or facial attributes.
That is not in compliance with the law of the land which is based on proof.
These are not proof but feelings. It does not say in the Constitution that if you feel someone is guilty you should convict them.
I understand your points but feel they seriously divert attention from the
need for absolute proof. :wave:

You are right of course...

I am happy to know that and to feel that.

But she IS guilty.:angel:

[CaliforniaGirl]

Our country was not built on the old west but rather on justice through proof "beyond a doubt"... Hopefully, we will stop the "hanging" emotions and look for proof beyond a doubt and I have seen that yet by the state.

The state does not have to prove beyond a doubt...they have to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Big diff. Barring an eyewitness or the deed caught on tape, there is (almost) always a doubt. The question is whether any doubt is or is not reasonable.

In my personal opinion, the state has already proven to me beyond a REASONABLE doubt that she killed her child. What they have not yet proven is whether it was premeditated murder or whether it was a very stupid mistake gone very wrong. I don't believe for one second that Caylee drowned in the backyard pool. I believe that she was chloroformed, duct tape placed over her mouth, and she died. If duct tape was placed over nose and mouth, premeditated murder. If over mouth only, premeditated murder or stupid mistake. Even if it was a stupid mistake, it was felony child endangerment, which makes any resulting death a felony murder even if it was an accident.

[Barefoot]

It is not important how we may feel regarding her guilt or innocence. whethe there is proof beyond a resonable doubt.

I disagree strongly with PennBF. It is important how we feel regarding Casey's guilt or innocence. TOTV is a "chat" site and we are entitled to express our opinions.

[Barefoot]

The state does not have to prove beyond a doubt...they have to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Big diff. Barring an eyewitness or the deed caught on tape, there is (almost) always a doubt. The question is whether any doubt is or is not reasonable.

In my personal opinion, the state has already proven to me beyond a REASONABLE doubt that she killed her child. What they have not yet proven is whether it was premeditated murder or whether it was a very stupid mistake gone very wrong. I don't believe for one second that Caylee drowned in the backyard pool. I believe that she was chloroformed, duct tape placed over her mouth, and she died. If duct tape was placed over nose and mouth, premeditated murder. If over mouth only, premeditated murder or stupid mistake. Even if it was a stupid mistake, it was felony child endangerment, which makes any resulting death a felony murder even if it was an accident.

Good points California Girl, I agree.

[skyguy79]

I disagree strongly with PennBF. It is important how we feel regarding Casey's guilt or innocence. TOTV is a "chat" site and we are entitled to express our opinions.Did it not occur to you that PennBF might have been referring to the outcome of the trail and not about expressing our opinions? I didn't read anything in Penn's statement that indicated that we didn't have the right to express our opinions on TOTV!

[rubicon]

The burden carried by the state in this criminal manner is indeed a heavy one. All the defense has to do is inject just enough of a qustion of guilt to sway a jury. The burden is even heavier in that the cause of death has not actually been determined but implied as the duct tape. Perhaps the State should not have pointed to the tape but left how the death actually occured could have been the tape, drugs, etc.

There is so so much that points to Casey Anthony. It will be interesting to see what the defense puts on in the next few days. Will the defense have some surprises?

[PennBF]

Thanks Skyguy79 as that was my point. It is refreshing to hear opinions but
they should not get confused with the law when it comes to proof. Also, I think in a capital case the state must prove beyond a doubt.
My personal opinion is that they have failed to prove she actually did murder even though I also believe she is one heck of a poor excuse for a mother and human being?
In addition I think the state made a number of errors and that it is reasoneble to assume that if she is convicted it may/will be turned around on appeal. I think the 4th state's attorney in the room was the Judge. He sustained almost every state objection and overruled almost all of the defense
objections. The defense has had a hard enought problem in trying to get her
off, (not that I agree with this) and the Judge would not let them fairly
represent her in the trial.
Please understand this in no way means I think she is innocent.:wave:

[Pturner]

It does not say in the Constitution that if you feel someone is guilty you should convict them.
I understand your points but feel they seriously divert attention from the
need for absolute proof. :wave:

Hi PennBF,
I understand your points but "absolute proof" is neither possible nor required in our criminal code. While many people believe that the state must prove a criminal defendent guilty "beyond all doubt", or to an absolute certainty, it just isn't so.

CaliforniaGirl is right that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Murder convictions have been upheld in which the only available evidence was circumstantial.

It is likely that in his "charge" or instructions to the jury, the judge will explain the "reasonable doubt" standard. Sometimes judges instruct the jury that their job is to "return a verdict that speaks the truth".

I haven't followed the details of this trial and don't have a guess as to what the jury will do.

[robertj1954]

Does anyone have any thought on the defense moving for a mistrial based upon the State's Video showing the duct tape super imposed over Caylee's face via photoshop, and then dissolving the facial image down to the recovered skull?

If I understand it correctly, this video also contained an image of the defendant Casey? If this is correct information. Then could the trial be fatally flawed based on an inflammatory visual that would unfairly bias the jury? That is the defense position. They objected to it being shown to the jury but the judge allowed it. Did the judge make a mistake? What say the informal jurors of TOTV?

[garytutor]

Is she guilty? In my mind I believe so....too many factors that add up to her being guilty. Everyone deserves a defense but did her little girl deserve what she got? Hmmmm.......:rant-rave:

[whartonjelly]

"return a verdict that speaks the truth".

I think that the mother has been a disturbed girl all her life. No real feelings for others at all. Probably born this way. What will she do next?

[Freeda]

Does anyone have any thought on the defense moving for a mistrial based upon the State's Video showing the duct tape super imposed over Caylee's face via photoshop, and then dissolving the facial image down to the recovered skull?

If I understand it correctly, this video also contained an image of the defendant Casey? If this is correct information. Then could the trial be fatally flawed based on an inflammatory visual that would unfairly bias the jury? That is the defense position. They objected to it being shown to the jury but the judge allowed it. Did the judge make a mistake? What say the informal jurors of TOTV?

I wonder the same thing; and I have seen some of this visual on a blog, but am not sure if what I saw is the same form in which it was allowed into evidence, since on tv we don't see alot of the exhibits. In the version that I saw, it was a photo of Caylee and a broading smiling Casey sort of looking down at her; and then the superimposing of a piece of duct tape across Caylee's mouth and change of the face to the skull; all done for the purpose of showing that a single piece of duct tape would be wide enough to cover both Caylee's mouth and nose. I wonder if a court of appeals might not think it was unduly inflammatory and prejudicial (personally, I feel it was) to use this photo with Casey in it, making it look like she is smiling at the ensuing scenario shown about Caylee/duct tape; and I wonder why the Court didn't make them crop Casey out, which could easily have been done; and I wonder why the state didn't want to do this itself; I think the state took a big risk of unnecessarily creating reversible error, which could result in a new trial.

I still haven't made up my mind about Casey's guilt, and won't until her defense is presented, but alot of thought I have been having as the trial has progressed is about the duct tape; and this has been eating at me because of having to try to actually visualize scenarios of what might have happened; and in doing so it forces a look at how a criminal mind might think; which I find upsetting. The idea that there are psychopathic people among us, and that some of them are parents, is terribly disturbing to me; and cases like this force us to confront this.

I initially felt strongly, probably mainly because of my bias that I just don't want to think that a parent could willingly harm their child, that this was an accident of some sort with a poorly conceived coverup gone bad; either a drowning (doubtful) or an accidental over-dose sedating of Caylee with chloroform or some similar agent. Of course, the third possibility, which is the one advanced by the prosecution, is deliberate, premeditated murder using the duct tape, probably after sedating the child, as an instrument of suffocation.

My problem, the more I have thought about the duct tape, is that I have started to think that it doesn't fit very well except with premeditated murder. I wonder what you all think about this, or what I may be missing in my ideas below?

First of all, let's say was a drowning, followed by a panicked decision to make it look like Caylee had been abducted and (in case the body was ever found) murdered by the 'nanny'; then I have problem with someone who was totally innocent of any murderous or abusive tendency or thinking, but who was now in a position of trying to decide how to make it 'look like' a child had been murdered, coming up with the idea "I know what I'll do! I'll put duct tape over her mouth and nose, so they'll think 'the nanny' abducted her and suffocated her using duct tape." It's hard for me to imagine a perfectly innocent person even being able to dream up with that bizarre idea as to how a child could be murdered; and, further appalling to imagine being able to be able complete the physical act of applying duct tape across your drowned child's mouth and nose.

Let's say that, instead, it was a sedating of Caylee with chloroform so that the mother could party with friends; not intending to kill her, though; and that Caylee accidently died from being oversedated. In that case, once the chloroform had been administered and the child was unconscious or on the way to becoming unconscious, was the duct tape applied to Caylee's mouth as a part of the sedating plan? If so, why? - for what purpose? To try to keep the child quiet in case she woke up prior to the mother returning? The problem with that is that even keeping the child's mouth closed wouldn't prevent her from making noise; it might somewhat muffle or lessen the noise, yes; but the child could still be heard - and the child would I think become even more upset, hysterical and noisy if she found her mouth taped; and wouldn't even a small child (she was almost 3 years old), in that situation, try to pull it off, and perhaps injure herself in doing so? Further, wouldn't a reasonable person, knowing that children's noses can become 'stuffy' - especially when they are crying - worry that covering a child's mouth could accidently lead to suffocation? Further, if not intending any harm, I can't imagine anyone thinking it would be reasonable to apply duct tape to the delicate, fragile lips and skin of a 2 year old and then expect to be able to remove the tape without damaging and irritating the child's skin; not to mention how to get it out of her hair (since the remains were found to have the duct tape also in Caylee's hair). So I can't clearly see why the duct tape would fit with the idea of Casey intending to only sedate, but not smother, her child; and I have alot of doubt that she would have duct taped her child's mouth shut just to keep her quiet in case she woke up from being sedated. And, just as above, if the child was oversedated and died just from the sedation alone, and no duct tape was applied until AFTER the 'accidental' death from oversedation (or, for that matter, from any other form of 'accidental' death), then the same problem as explained above in discussing the drowning scenario exists - who but a truly depraved person would even be able to think of/come up with the idea of using duct tape to 'stage' the apparent - but not actual - suffocation murder of a little child? What loving parent could bear to apply the tape, for whatever reason, to their dead child's face?

These problems are weighing on me, as I hate to even accept the thought that anyone - particularly a parent - could have intentionally suffocated a child; but although I am still not sure, nor convinced beyond reasonable doubt, of what happened, I am more than before thinking that when the duct tape was placed, it was never intended to be removed, and that that's also why the tape was partially stuck to the baby's hair, ie, it doesn't matter if it's stuck to the hair if you don't plan to try to remove it.

I feel it is likely that when the body was disposed of, it was believed that it would never be found; maybe it had been poorly buried and then surfaced later. I think that Casey has alot of explaining to try to do.

Still remains to be seen.

[raynan]

I believe she is guilty also. I can't get over that she was the only one available to use the computer on the dates of 3/17 and 3/21 and the searches for chloraform and internal bleeding etc. were done 3 months before the child went missing. The duct tape could have been put on her after death to contain fluids from decomposition. It's just all so gruesome and Casey just sits there adjusting her hair and her tops with no expression during the most explicit testimony. She has no heart!

[dillywho]

Excellent points, Freeda.

I have not made up my mind, either, and don't want to until all is said and done. I do think that Judge Perry will rule tomorrow to take it to jury and I am hoping that he does. That will give her a better shot at a fair trial both in the court of law, as it should, and in the court of public opinion. The one thing I am sure of is that she knows what happened to her daughter.

So far, the prosecution has not come up with anything more than theories. Yes, their lineup of forensics experts has been impressive, but even some of those experts have said that it is not infallible.

The prosecution came up today with supporting documents of work records showing that both Cindy and George were at work at the time the computer searches were done. I wondered why they didn't have documentation as to their status (especially George) for June 16. It could be that they can't until the defense opens the door for that day.

Another thing I can't understand is why Cindy and George are so defiant with Casey's attorneys after stating time after time that their love for her is unconditional. Those people are trying to save their daughter's life.

I still wonder why neither side questioned George further when he testified that when he asked Caylee that morning of the 16th where she was going to go that day she said, "Zanny's". Why has the prosecution not asked George, Cindy, or Lee if Caylee ever talked about Zanny? My boys always talked about their sitter. Everything was about Steele and Pawdad (her name was Mrs. Steele but they just called her Steele and her husband was Pawdad).

Was Caylee often drowsy the next day when Casey had taken her out with her at night? If so, why didn't George or Cindy pick up on it...especially if it happened regularly?

Those were great thoughts about the duct tape and your take on all angles from ante to post-mortem. I agree that the animation was out of line and if the jury sees it the same way, then it could really backfire on the prosecution. It seemed that it was intentionally introduced for its inflammatory value.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution can come up with the "smoking gun" today. So far, they haven't.

[aln]

My 2 cents

They were asking a tatoo artist about Casey's demeanor in 2008.

HUH?

How many of you can remember who you golfed with on a particular day in 2008 let alone what their demeanor was?

Think of the dozens or maybe even hundreds of people this 'artist' saw in July 2008 . . . I'll go ask the deli girl at Publix what I ordered back then.... yeah right!

[jackz]

My 2 cents

They were asking a tatoo artist about Casey's demeanor in 2008.

HUH?

How many of you can remember who you golfed with on a particular day in 2008 let alone what their demeanor was?

Think of the dozens or maybe even hundreds of people this 'artist' saw in July 2008 . . . I'll go ask the deli girl at Publix what I ordered back then.... yeah right!

The "artists" testimony is that he has known Casey for 7 years, not one day in July of 2008.

[robertj1954]

My 2 cents

They were asking a tatoo artist about Casey's demeanor in 2008.

HUH?

How many of you can remember who you golfed with on a particular day in 2008 let alone what their demeanor was?

Think of the dozens or maybe even hundreds of people this 'artist' saw in July 2008 . . . I'll go ask the deli girl at Publix what I ordered back then.... yeah right!

The tatoo artist was likely interviewed early into the investigation, after it was learned she had the tatoo done. It is not typical behavior when your daughter is missing, in my opinion anyways. The tatoo artist would have remembered, because he said on the stand, they were friends. Maybe not every detail, but enough to recollect for the investigator.

Once they have the witness statement, the State Attorney brings them in to question them on what they know of the case and to put it into an official sworn statement. (affidavit) Then later the defense questions them about their statement during a deposition. Before giving their testimony, they are then allowed to read their deposition prior to testimony. That is a reasonable explanation for why he is able to offer the information from the day she received the tatoo. It is not like he was asked these questions 3 years later for the very first time.

PS - I always remember the names of fellow golfers who say right up front, NO gimmies! :icon_wink:

[PennBF]

For all of those who assert the state has proved without a reasonable doubt that she is guilty. Please respond with answers to the following and I will agree. Without responses then my points are valid:
1. When did she die..?
2. Where did she die?
3. How did she die?
4. How was she killed?
5. How did she get in the "swamp"?

I am not asking for circumstanial replies but rather factual answers!.:spoken:

[graciegirl]

My 2 cents

They were asking a tattoo artist about Casey's demeanor in 2008.

HUH?

How many of you can remember who you golfed with on a particular day in 2008 let alone what their demeanor was?

Think of the dozens or maybe even hundreds of people this 'artist' saw in July 2008 . . . I'll go ask the deli girl at Publix what I ordered back then.... yeah right!

If either of my daughters or grandchildren or my husband had gone missing in the last two weeks, the last thing on my list of things to do would have been to get a tattoo. And the last subject in my mind would have been in Italian "The Good Life".

To me that is some of the most damning evidence.

That is NOT how normal people act.

And...it was said that Casey ordered a pizza after the tattoo and they all had a little party. I also wonder where the $200 or more for the tattoo came from....plus the money for the pizza.

Some of the things that have not come out in the trial is the fact that she embezzled many thousands of dollars from her grandfathers account by forging her own mothers checks and also doing the same to her close friend when that friend was on vacation. That does not prove murder, but it proves a lack of concience. She was convicted on 12 felony charges due to these issues.

She isn't normal. She isn't good. But is she capable of murder? Maybe the state won't be able to prove that...but I can see with my own eyes she isn't sad about her daughter being gone. I just know that she is responsible for getting rid of that beautiful child so she could live "La Dolce Vita".

Some things cry to heaven for vengeance.

[jebartle]

Just for clarification, tattoo cost was $65, plus $35 TIP, and purchase of pizza, also made appt. for another tattoo and promise of bringing Caylee next time (Yea Right!)...

Mason is doing a bit of grand-standing don't you think!!!....Guess this would be only reason for lawyer on pro bono to stay with this case!



And...it was said that Casey ordered a pizza after the tattoo and they all had a little party. I also wonder where the $200 or more for the tattoo came from....plus the money for the pizza.[/QUOTE]

[graciegirl]

Just for clarification, tattoo cost was $65, plus $35 TIP, and purchase of pizza, also made appt. for another tattoo and promise of bringing Kaylee next time (Yea Right!)...

Mason is doing a bit of grand-standing don't you think!!!....Guess this would be only reason for lawyer on pro bono to stay with this case!



And...it was said that Casey ordered a pizza after the tattoo and they all had a little party. I also wonder where the $200 or more for the tattoo came from....plus the money for the pizza.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Jebartle. I must have left the room when they said what the cost of tattoo was. Don't have much direct information on tattoo purchases, but can tell you that they are charging way too much for lemons in Ohio AND Florida.:wave:

[angela1990]

If the verdict comes back not guilty, where does this girl go from here? Will her parents take her back home? Will anyone of her "friends" trust her in their homes now that they all know how she lies and steals? I think being found not guilty might be a worse punishment. I wouldn't trust her. I think most people would treat her as though she was guilty and got away with it.
On the other hand, if found guilty, she gets room, board and medical on us, not to mention the money we will pay for all her appeals? In the end who gets punished if she is found guilty, her or us?

[The Shadow]

The way I see it Caylee was put to sleep with chloroform, put in the trunk of the car the rag used to chloroform her was thrown in the trunk, her mouth was duct taped to prevent her from crying out if she woke up Casey then went to Church Street to party, Caylee was then suffocated in the confined area of the trunk with the chloroform rag. Or you could say she had an accidental overdose of chloroform.

The reason this accrued was Casey wanted to deny George and Cindy time with Caylee. Casey did not have money for a baby sitter but had a need to party so the trunk idea evolved, need being the mother of invention.

The good news is in lying her way out of this she has lied her way into the death penalty.

She was not shown to be an abusive mother, a lying party animal yes.

The prosecution did not prove the duct tape was over the nose.

My verdict, Dirt Bag, life without parole.

[Russ_Boston]

I'm not sure, after seeing much of the prosecution evidence, how I would vote if on the jury. Do I THINK she's guilty? Yes. Did the state remove all doubt? Don't think so.

If I were her defense team I might have just said, after the prosecution rested, "Your honor, The Defense Rests, the prosecution team didn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt". Even if all of their facts are true I didn't see much that proved that Casey did those deeds.

Did I miss something that positively tied her to the facts of the death? I admit I didn't see it all.

[graciegirl]

I'm not sure, after seeing much of the prosecution evidence, how I would vote if on the jury. Do I THINK she's guilty? Yes. Did the state remove all doubt? Don't think so.

If I were her defense team I might have just said, after the prosecution rested, "Your honor, The Defense Rests, the prosecution team didn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt". Even if all of their facts are true I didn't see much that proved that Casey did those deeds.

Did I miss something that positively tied her to the facts of the death? I admit I didn't see it all.

Well, the medical examininer says that a childs body is not bagged and duct taped and thrown in a field to rot if they are drowned and she ruled the manner of death as homicide. The fact that so many people testified that she didn't even mention her child was missing as she persued the party life is particularly damning. And it is reasonable doubt Russ, not all doubt. If you had watched the trial from beginning to end and seen that she was the person who did searches on home made chloroform 83 times on her computer and neck breaking and internal bleeding...And not only that she lied but she took lying to an art form. You had to see it.

[The Shadow]

Roy Kronk Subpoenaed By Casey Defense
Perry said the defense claimed that Kronk had a "possible history of inappropriate behavior with young girls," a history of "abusing, restraining, and holding women against their will," using duct tape to restrain women and even said there is a chance that he knew the locations of the remains before alerting law enforcement.
http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28223487/detail.html

[red tail]

Well, the medical examininer says that a childs body is not bagged and duct taped and thrown in a field to rot if they are drowned and she ruled the manner of death as homicide. The fact that so many people testified that she didn't even mention her child was missing as she persued the party life is particularly damning. And it is reasonable doubt Russ, not all doubt. If you had watched the trial from beginning to end and seen that she was the person who did searches on home made chloroform 83 times on her computer and neck breaking and internal bleeding...And not only that she lied but she took lying to an art form. You had to see it.

the trial is only half over. hard to understand how you can make judgement already!

[memason]

Roy Kronk Subpoenaed By Casey Defense

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28223487/detail.html

This story was on 20/20 last week. If any of these allegations are remotely true, then it's a big problem for the prosecution. Here's a link to the story on ABC.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/casey-anthony-body-tampering-allegation-shake-case/t/story?id=13814284

[The Shadow]

the trial is only half over. hard to understand how you can make judgement already!

I am looking for a list of other suspects the police have. Wait, they have none. Perhaps the body was incorrectly identified and Caylee is still with Grany the Nanny no, no such person exist. Maybe Caylee’s boyfriend killed her, a loan shark, a drug dealer. Go figure.:oops:

[red tail]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-trial-day-19-20110615,0,4375972.story

check this out! just came out in the sentinel.

[Russ_Boston]

I get all your points but I guess I'll wait until the defense presents before I make up my mind.

[red tail]

I get all your points but I guess I'll wait until the defense presents before I make up my mind.

smart man

[rubicon]

Roy Kronk Subpoenaed By Casey Defense

http://www.wesh.com/casey-y. Weanthony-extended-coverage/28223487/detail.html (http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28223487/detail.html)

While Baez discredited Kronk's testimony concerning the discovery of the body, in his opening statement he went on to say that the death of Caylee was an accidental drowning....... The allegations against Kronk may be true so it is troubling why the police and the State proceeded in the manner they had??? So I wonder if Baez is using Kronk as another distraction??

What we do know is that Casey was the last to see Caylee. What we do know is Casey lied about Zannyh the Nanny. We also know she had other fictional characters before and following Caylee demise. We know she was irresponsible, for instance what did not get into the trail is that on two occassions while sleeping over at her boyfriend's house Caylee awaked her in the middle of the night. Casey left with Caylee returned and went back to bed. Casey did not take her daughter home to cindy as she claimed. so where did she take the child?? We can go on and on but anyone following the trials understands that a girl who can still from family and friends act in the manner she had is very selfish. I will wait to hear the defense side of this but so far Baez has juat been blowing smoke

[graciegirl]

the trial is only half over. hard to understand how you can make judgement already!

AT THIS POINT this is what I think and how I feel and this is what I type on this discussion thread. I am not on the jury.

I have followed this case since 2008.

That darling, innocent, charming, adorable child did not deserve this.

Have you heard the tape of her singing "You are my sunshine"?

She wasn't even three years old.

If I seem emotional about this, I am.

[sandybill2]

AT THIS POINT this is what I think and how I feel and this is what I type on this discussion thread. I am not on the jury.

I have followed this case since 2008.

That darling, innocent, charming, adorable child did not deserve this.

Have you heard the tape of her singing "You are my sunshine"?

She wasn't even three years old.

If I seem emotional about this, I am.

I am emotional about this too Gracie Girl----I am not the Jury--- even though I have been watching this each and every day-- I have a grandaughter who is my "heart"---Our song is and has been "you are my sunshine"---- I cannot imagine the grief and heartbreak that Cindy and George are going through---I don't see that in Casey. My opinion. I am entitled to it as each poster on this thread is entitled to theirs. Not going to argue about it. Just felt the need to "get it out there." Time will tell what the Jury will decide.

[red tail]

i truely understand where you are coming from. you are always a kind understanding person and i guess thats why im so surprised at your responses when all you really know is what you hear in the media. the only way to judge her is what you hear at trial not the pundits in the media.

[Pturner]

the trial is only half over. hard to understand how you can make judgement already!

Hi Red Tail,
I hear what you're saying, but only jurors are obliged to form a "legal" opinion, that is, whether they think the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one else gets to render a legal verdict and is therefore free to think for themselves, and is justified in having an opinion as to whether Casey did or did not kill her child. They are equally justified in changing their opinions if new evidence and/or explanations they deem plausible come to light as the trial continues.

The jury is not privy to any discussions outside the courtroom. Public opinion is what it is, but has no bearing on the legal verdict. The legal verdict might or might not reflect what actually happened.

[graciegirl]

i truly understand where you are coming from. you are always a kind understanding person and i guess thats why im so surprised at your responses when all you really know is what you hear in the media. the only way to judge her is what you hear at trial not the pundits in the media.

Thank you for understanding.

The very thought that a beloved daughter could kill a beloved granddaughter is so far beyond anything anyone should ever have to bear.

Cindy and George have their warts, but I believe that they truly adored that child and loved/love their daughter deeply. Casey, so beautiful and so healthy and so articulate, she had such a chance to make something wonderful for herself. It is such a tragedy from every angle.

[jebartle]

Plllleeeease forgive me for this little observation....My "ole boy" after they determined that the heart shaped sticker was 45 feet away from the skull, just knew that Baez was going to call "Sammy Squirrel" as the next witness to determine the details of how it got there!...The :1rotfl::1rotfl: "ole boy" cracks me up!...Maybe a breathe analyst also....Had to share, sooooo sorry!...giggle

[red tail]

Hi Red Tail,
I hear what you're saying, but only jurors are obliged to form a "legal" opinion, that is, whether they think the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one else gets to render a legal verdict and is therefore free to think for themselves, and is justified in having an opinion as to whether Casey did or did not kill her child. They are equally justified in changing their opinions if new evidence and/or explanations they deem plausible come to light as the trial continues.

The jury is not privy to any discussions outside the courtroom. Public opinion is what it is, but has no bearing on the legal verdict. The legal verdict might or might not reflect what actually happened.

didnt mean to ruffle the feathers of the TOTV womens club. we all have opinions and we all have the right to express them. nuff said.

[dillywho]

I remember the trial of Cullen Davis in Texas. It was moved from Ft. Worth to Amarillo on a change of venue because he was such a well known oil tycoon in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area and it was determined that as such, he would never get a fair trial in Ft. Worth. ("Racehorse" Haynes was his attorney.) He was found not guilty. One of my friends was on the jury and told us afterwards that they felt that he probably was guilty, but they could not convict on their feelings. They determined that the state had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they could not render a verdict of guilty because of the state's failure to build a tight case.


This story is going to be on tonight at 8:00 on LMN (119 on Comcast). It's titled "Texas Justice".

[Pturner]

didnt mean to ruffle the feathers of the TOTV womens club. we all have opinions and we all have the right to express them. nuff said.

Oh Red Tail,
I am sorry if my post came across that way. You have not ruffled my feathers at all and I apologize sincerely if I have ruffled yours. We saw an issue differently and both expressed our opinions. If I expressed mine in a way that seemed abrasive, or seemed as if I were "closing ranks" with anyone, it was not my intention.

If there is such a thing as a TOTV women's club, well then, you and I are equal members.

[Barefoot]

She isn't normal. She isn't good. But is she capable of murder? Maybe the state won't be able to prove that...but I can see with my own eyes she isn't sad about her daughter being gone. I just know that she is responsible for getting rid of that beautiful child so she could live "La Dolce Vita". Some things cry to heaven for vengeance.


I am emotional about this too Gracie Girl----I am not the Jury--- even though I have been watching this each and every day-- I have a grandaughter who is my "heart"---Our song is and has been "you are my sunshine"---- I cannot imagine the grief and heartbreak that Cindy and George are going through---I don't see that in Casey. My opinion. I am entitled to it as each poster on this thread is entitled to theirs. Not going to argue about it. Just felt the need to "get it out there." Time will tell what the Jury will decide.

I agree with GG and Sandybill above. Of course we haven't yet heard the complete case from The Defence. But most of what Casey has said since June of 2008 has been a lie. She admits that she lied to the Police. She admits now that Zanny was a total fabrication. So how could we believe a Defence based on her lies?

I'm also emotional about this case, as most people are. Cindy and George are in constant anguish, their life has turned into a never-ending nightmare. I have watched a lot of the coverage with Casey sitting stone faced in court, except when she is feeling sorry for herself. Cindy mouthed the words "I Love You" to Casey when she left the witness stand, and Casey turned away. I believe that Casey is mentally ill and unable to feel empathy, guilt or compassionate for anyone.

[jebartle]

Is he REALLY over-worked and under-payed and this information slipped thru the cracks OR was his intention to do a "Gotcha" on the state!

[Barefoot]

Is he REALLY over-worked and under-payed and this information slipped thru the cracks OR was his intention to do a "Gotcha" on the state!

Baez got spanked again by the judge this morning. His inexperience is showing. At some point, can Casey Anthony claim incompetent representation and get a new lawyer?

[jebartle]

Think it's time for him to RETIRE....Yipsters!....Even the jury chuckled at this EXPERT??? (I'm sure he was in his day)

[sandybill2]

Think it's time for him to RETIRE....Yipsters!....Even the jury chuckled at this EXPERT??? (I'm sure he was in his day)


I think you are right. I cringed when he implied that the medical examiner's office /CSI-"staged" evidence. Hate he has gone "out" on that note but doubt that he will be asked to testify again. He said he practiced for 50 Plus years---I tried to find out his age. Does anyone know? Just curious. Think it is time for him to relocate to The Villages and enjoy the rest of his life. (as we are doing)

[duffysmom]

I think you are right. I cringed when he implied that the medical examiner's office /CSI-"staged" evidence. Hate he has gone "out" on that note but doubt that he will be asked to testify again. He said he practiced for 50 Plus years---I tried to find out his age. Does anyone know? Just curious. Think it is time for him to relocate to The Villages and enjoy the rest of his life. (as we are doing)

Personally I don't understand this age discrimination.:shrug:
Many years of experience is a plus in my mind and I felt that he raised some interesting points. The analyst's I listend to were impressed.

[sandybill2]

Personally I don't understand this age discrimination.:shrug:
Many years of experience is a plus in my mind and I felt that he raised some interesting points. The analyst's I listend to were impressed.


I didn't say anything about his age other than I was curious as to how old he was. Didn't relate it to his comments.

[nitakk]

He certainly got confused easy and forgot his train of thought a lot. I think I have seen that behavior before - wait, let me think for a minute - oh, hell, I forgot what I was going to say!
I thought his testimony was terrible and unless you believe in the biggest conspiracy theory that involved Roy Kronk, the ME's office, the CSI people and the prosecutor's office, you have to think he's a guy who should have retired a while ago. It was painful to watch him fumble for words and thoughts and I don't think he helped the defense at all.

[rubicon]

The doctor had a good run. When he began with this resume I explained to my wife that he was sitting on his laurels and that his testimony was going to be bad. Unfortunately for him that is what occurred. Baez tried twice to ambush the state and got called on the carpet...........But folks this is all fluff and intended to be so, distractions such as illusionist use..This case is simple Casey Anthony discovered that motherhood required sacrifaces, sacrifaces she was unable and unwilling to make. She left her child unattended and /or intentionally killed her. Remember that Baez stated that Caylee drowned which means that Casey told him that she knew the girl was dead. Her daughter was missing for 31 + days before the police were alerted. Casey misled everyone who attempted to recover her daugther. Casey was the last person to see her daugther alive. So forget the distraction focus on those simple and inexplainable facts. We don't know how Caylee died but we do know that her mother was responsible be it an accident or neglect or an intentional act. It could not have been anyother way.

I am not a great advocate of the death penalty but there have been a few cases where I believe the world would be better with certain people.

Casey wanted to have a free life putting heer behind bars for 20-30 years works for me.

What does work for me is to see Casey anthony, Baez, etc making money from a book, or movied deal; especially when the tax payers funded this defense

[PennBF]

I can't believe the number of people who believe the Doctor today was not effective.
In my opinion he was an outstanding witness for the defense. His qualifications were beyond reproach, he did not allow the State to beat him down and get him off of his position nor impeach his testimony. In short he was a terrific witness for the defense. Some significant points he made were, (a) the State did a "shoddy" job of an autospy, (b) the state moved the hair thereby altering the crime scene and evidence, (c) you cannot determine what was the matter or cause of death, (d) No DNA on Tape,
(e) head was moved, etc.etc. This is coming from a Pathlogist who worked on the Kennedy Assasination, King Assasination, Testified before Congress, worked on OJ Case, worked on Spector case, was one of 2 who founded the Body Farm in Tenn, Administered or taught over 60,000 autopsies, is Professor at 2 Universities, and many more..in fact too many to put down.
It is pretty clear that some have a limited knowledge as to how a witness is to handle himself, avoid being sucked into the confrontation which the State tried to do today, allow time to think the Q and A out, be direct and render
the expert opinions so the jury can understand them. He was terrific. As regards his "slow talk"..It was not because he was lacking in memory, god knows it would be great if we all had his memory at his age. He was clearly thinking through his response's and as they always want you to do he was being "crisp".
I believe that some have already convicted Casey, have not heard all of the evidence and are attacking anyone who testify's to truth and fact. That is not only unfair to the defendent but contray to the American system of justice.:sad:

[jebartle]

Where was the DNA on the tape after the body skeletonized....This tape was supposedly (according to Dr. Spitz) applied by medical examiner or CSI....Also in order to apply this tape, they would have had to lift the skull and mandible....Where are these prints? If any prints were to be found it would have been those because this altering was done AFTER the body skeletonized..We all know that the medical examiners team always wore gloves, why can't we assume that whoever placed the body there to begin with, also wore gloves..Last point, the tape had to have been there for an extended period of time because it was also decomposing..(1)Skull cap removal WAS NOT part of a pathology protocol...I agree Casey deserves "Due Process" BUT Dr. Spitz's qualifications (which are extensive) does not change the evidence found! Believe me, this witnesses lack of credability on the stand were NOT lost by the jury!(They were smirking)...I respect your opinion but not your assesment!





I can't believe the number of people who believe the Doctor today was not effective.
In my opinion he was an outstanding witness for the defense. His qualifications were beyond reproach, he did not allow the State to beat him down and get him off of his position nor impeach his testimony. In short he was a terrific witness for the defense. Some significant points he made were, (a) the State did a "shoddy" job of an autospy, (b) the state moved the hair thereby altering the crime scene and evidence, (c) you cannot determine what was the matter or cause of death, (d) No DNA on Tape,
(e) head was moved, etc.etc. This is coming from a Pathlogist who worked on the Kennedy Assasination, King Assasination, Testified before Congress, worked on OJ Case, worked on Spector case, was one of 2 who founded the Body Farm in Tenn, Administered or taught over 60,000 autopsies, is Professor at 2 Universities, and many more..in fact too many to put down.
It is pretty clear that some have a limited knowledge as to how a witness is to handle himself, avoid being sucked into the confrontation which the State tried to do today, allow time to think the Q and A out, be direct and render
the expert opinions so the jury can understand them. He was terrific. As regards his "slow talk"..It was not because he was lacking in memory, god knows it would be great if we all had his memory at his age. He was clearly thinking through his response's and as they always want you to do he was being "crisp".
I believe that some have already convicted Casey, have not heard all of the evidence and are attacking anyone who testify's to truth and fact. That is not only unfair to the defendent but contray to the American system of justice.:sad:

[The Shadow]

I can't believe the number of people who believe the Doctor today was not effective.
In my opinion he was an outstanding witness for the defense. His qualifications were beyond reproach, he did not allow the State to beat him down and get him off of his position nor impeach his testimony. In short he was a terrific witness for the defense. Some significant points he made were, (a) the State did a "shoddy" job of an autospy, (b) the state moved the hair thereby altering the crime scene and evidence, (c) you cannot determine what was the matter or cause of death, (d) No DNA on Tape,
(e) head was moved, etc.etc. This is coming from a Pathlogist who worked on the Kennedy Assasination, King Assasination, Testified before Congress, worked on OJ Case, worked on Spector case, was one of 2 who founded the Body Farm in Tenn, Administered or taught over 60,000 autopsies, is Professor at 2 Universities, and many more..in fact too many to put down.
It is pretty clear that some have a limited knowledge as to how a witness is to handle himself, avoid being sucked into the confrontation which the State tried to do today, allow time to think the Q and A out, be direct and render
the expert opinions so the jury can understand them. He was terrific. As regards his "slow talk"..It was not because he was lacking in memory, god knows it would be great if we all had his memory at his age. He was clearly thinking through his response's and as they always want you to do he was being "crisp".
I believe that some have already convicted Casey, have not heard all of the evidence and are attacking anyone who testify's to truth and fact. That is not only unfair to the defendent but contray to the American system of justice.:sad:

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii199/The_Villages/ATTB.gif

[JenAjd]

I watched the FoxNews Special last night (2 hours long) and found it to be informative. I've not watched the day-in, day-out coverage as it's too tedious and while living here in TV have other things to do. Anyway, the news analyst feels that Casey probably used the choroform to put Caley to sleep in her car-trunk as her boyfriend didn't want her bringing the baby overnight. That Caley may have awakened so she may have put the duct tape over her to keep her quiet. (but that goes againest what medical expert's opinion from yesterday's trial) and when she found her, the baby had died. She panicked and put her in triple garbage bags and tried to bury her in the yard and when that didn't work took her around the corner to the woods and placed the bag there. It was also brought out that when she was younger, a friend and neighbor girl and her used to play in those woods and sometimes buried and had funerals for their small pets (fish, gerbils and the like). Interesting thoughts anyway. That the baby wasn't murdered with intent but a horrible accident. Casey would portrayed in this program to be manipulative, an actress and more.

There's so many thoughts and speculations regarding this whole thing. Especially since Caley's body was so badly decomposed. I wonder if they'll have Casey on the stand at all??!!! It's just a sad, sad case all the way around!

[PennBF]

I don't see any humor in the fact that a life is in the balance. It has been my belief that if you would vote for the death penalty you should be able to pull the switch or insert the deadly needle that will kill someone. Taking a life should not be viewed lightly or with any humor.
I understand some who have difficulty with the Dr. and his testimony. Not to get too personal but I have prepared witness's for depositions, trial, have
examined their doc's, and it was a very significant and well known trial
inside and outside the US. In my opinion this Dr. was well prepared, was very knowledgeable and acted extremely well on the witness stand.
It is interesting that every analyst I have seen on TV or read about all agree he was very powerful for the defense. I do wish that although it is obvious that everyone has the right to opinion that it is not lost that a human life is in the balance and therefore it is very serious.
I am not saying she is innocent as I have not heard all the evidence but believe she deserves the benefit of the American system of justice.:)

[PennBF]

I believe there will at a minimum be a mistrial. (1) the obvious problem of not reading her the Miranda rights, (2) The judge ruling that no testimony regarding expert opinions can be testified to if they were not identified in the report submitted by the expert prior to testifying, (3) the prepondence of sustained for the State vs Defense, (e.g. restricts defense from providing
an adquate defense,) (4) allowing the over layed view of the skull with tape and the mother inserted in the background (5) allowing possible witness's, (e.g. mother/father/brother) to sit in on the testimony during the trial even though they were identified as possible witness's by the defense. This is unbelievable!!
There are probablya bunch more and these are just a few that right or wrong would be plenty enough to call a mistrial or reversal by the appeals court. :duck:

[jebartle]

He could not determine the manner of Caylee's death???? accidental, homicide, suicide or natural causes....Think Dr. G was a LOT more believable....How could a child end up in a Trash Dump by Accident? Certainly NOT a suicide, and I can't remember the last time someone died from natural causes in two garbage bags and a laundry bag with duck tape near the skull....Really, isn't there a little common sense here?

[dillywho]

One of the bloggers pointed to one of the most credible arguments for it not being premeditated murder:

If it was premeditated (planned out in advance, the prosecution's theory of a couple of months based on computer searches), then why would she drive around for days, as alleged, with Caylee's body in the trunk? Wouldn't she have planned for her disposal as well?

I feel that she is guilty of something; just don't know what as of yet, other than lying at every opportunity. Is she covering for herself, someone else, or both?

I agree, there is absolutely nothing humorous about any of this. Regardless of whether you like her or not, many lives have been ruined and hers is at stake. Should she lose hers, that will also be a tragedy for those who love her...regardless whether those are few or many.

[Barefoot]

He could not determine the manner of Caylee's death???? accidental, homicide, suicide or natural causes....Think Dr. G was a LOT more believable....How could a child end up in a Trash Dump by Accident? Certainly NOT a suicide, and I can't remember the last time someone died from natural causes in two garbage bags and a laundry bag with duck tape near the skull....Really, isn't there a little common sense here?

From Sandybill:
I think you are right. I cringed when he implied that the medical examiner's office /CSI-"staged" evidence. Hate he has gone "out" on that note but doubt that he will be asked to testify again.

I agree with jebartle and Sandybill, that Dr. G was a LOT more believable. The Defense has only started it's case, so it's still early days. But so far, I think the Prosecution witnesses have been very believable, especially Dr. G. I wasn't impressed at all with Dr. Spitz and his "conspiracy" theory that the medical examiners staged evidence! :ohdear:

[jebartle]

She wasn't arrested, why read her the Miranda, 2.the judge under this circumstance has every right to have a court order, in order to keep all gamesmanship out of the trial is within his jurisdiction and certainly keeps the trial timely...3.How was the defense restricted? 4, I missed the overlay, was the jury privy to this?, 5,...They stipulated other decisions that allowed family to be present during previous testimonies, I'll admit this was strange..I won't be surprised if this will be tied up in court for many many years on appeal....I appreciate your insite as an attorney but still question some of your comments but that is what makes the world go 'round! IMHO





I believe there will at a minimum be a mistrial. (1) the obvious problem of not reading her the Miranda rights, (2) The judge ruling that no testimony regarding expert opinions can be testified to if they were not identified in the report submitted by the expert prior to testifying, (3) the prepondence of sustained for the State vs Defense, (e.g. restricts defense from providing
an adquate defense,) (4) allowing the over layed view of the skull with tape and the mother inserted in the background (5) allowing possible witness's, (e.g. mother/father/brother) to sit in on the testimony during the trial even though they were identified as possible witness's by the defense. This is unbelievable!!
There are probablya bunch more and these are just a few that right or wrong would be plenty enough to call a mistrial or reversal by the appeals court. :duck:

[PennBF]

She wasn't arrested, why read her the Miranda, 2.the judge under this circumstance has every right to have a court order, in order to keep all gamesmanship out of the trial is within his jurisdiction and certainly keeps the trial timely...3.How was the defense restricted? 4, I missed the overlay, was the jury privy to this?, 5,...They stipulated other decisions that allowed family to be present during previous testimonies, I'll admit this was strange..I won't be surprised if this will be tied up in court for many many years on appeal....I appreciate your insite as an attorney but still question some of your comments but that is what makes the world go 'round! IMHO

In respoinse to the answer to my note on mistrial, appeal reversal: Comments above:
1. As the retired sheriff of Dade/Miami County said she should have been
mirandized the moment they put her in the back seat of a squad car. Further
as Harvard Professor Dershish (Spelling of name?) said when they put her in a room with 2 deputy sheriff's + the Detective and they started to ask questions including the one by the Detective, "Are you going to stay with the story you just told" she had to be Mirandized. She was not and per both this is a serious violation and basis for a mistrial.
2. I was involved in a trial in the Federal Building in NYC when a Federal Judge said to the cross exam attorney that he must provide his questions
ahead of time.The ex US Attorney General who was, sitting next to me said that is cause for a mistrial. The judge realizing he made an error corrected it and said he was only suggesting it and it was not a court order. To illustrate the trick that was played on this..The State did not raise this in a deposition as they wanted to have it testified in court and the expert did. When the defense started to raise a question, the State said it was not in the original opinion submitted by the expert. This was a trick by the State and unfortuntely the Defense walked into it. How could the expert expect to put it in a report if it was not a problem in a deposition. The trick was not by the defense but rather by the State and they got away with it.
3. This is purely subjective but I believe there is a huge imbalance between how many sustained objections he approved for the state vs the defense. I am not sure how strong this is for a mistrial but it appears to be a judicial
leaning to the State. We should remember the Judge was a "Prosecutor"!!!
4. Yes, it was shown to the jury and it was totally out of line since it was
"created evidence" made to look factual.
5. I believe there was a request by the Defense to challenge this in a hearing
and it was rejected. :undecided:

[jebartle]

Baez needs a few more years under his belt before taking on this case that is under the microscope...I know he has been over-ruled at least 4 times as much as the prosecution on objections BUT I find the prosecution more competent...

In regard to Cindy, George and Lee listening to testimony, I'm sure it was stated that on previous cases, it was allowed for families of defendents only!

Regarding Dr. Spitz, between me and you and everyone in TOTV land, do you honestly believe that the good Dr. could not determine the MANNER of death?
Seriously!

[PennBF]

I was honestly going to stop posting on this subject but decided to add one more. The Comments:
"]Baez needs a few more years under his belt before taking on this case that is under the microscope...I know he has been over-ruled at least 4 times as much as the prosecution on objections BUT I find the prosecution more competent
Comment: There are a number of reasons an attorney will object to a question. Some of which are: (a) To alert the witness to really think the
answer out, (b) to break any rhythm that the other attorney may have set.
There are attempt to set a rhythm so when it is broken the opposing attorney knows the witness is uncomfortable with the question and will come
back to it, etc.etc.(c) because they really object to the question. My point is that being over-ruled is not just a sign of lacking compentency but can be
a good technique when there is cross examinations.
"In regard to Cindy, George and Lee listening to testimony, I'm sure it was stated that on previous cases, it was allowed for families of defendents only!"
Comment: I am astonished that possible witness's can sit in on testimony
as it poison's the whole concept of unvarnished truthful testimony. If you
know what has been said by other witness's you have to be influenced as to
what you will testify to. In this case the parents sitting in may be significant
character's in the case and should never be allowed in the court while any
testimony is being heard. Remember it is alleged that they have their own
attorney who is only looking out for thier interests.

"Regarding Dr. Spitz, between me and you and everyone in TOTV land, do you honestly believe that the good Dr. could not determine the MANNER of death?"SeriouslyComments: I absolutely believe that (a) he testified truthfully as his reputation is critical to him as it reprents his life's work. (b) I absolutely
believe the manner and cause of death cannot be determined. Not only
based on his testimony but those of other experts.

[whartonjelly]

I think that too much money is being wasted. Casey has a brain that is not wired right.They should just put her a way in a mental hospital forever. I believe if anyhone gets in her way again , she is capable of harming people. Would you want her living at your house? She was born this way. No one is to blame. It is possible to have a doctor , lawyer, writer, priest and a mass murderer from the same set of parents. It just is. Just my opinion so far.

[VillagesFlorida]

I think that too much money is being wasted. Casey has a brain that is not wired right.They should just put her a way in a mental hospital forever. I believe if anyhone gets in her way again , she is capable of harming people. Would you want her living at your house? She was born this way. No one is to blame. It is possible to have a doctor , lawyer, writer, priest and a mass murderer from the same set of parents. It just is. Just my opinion so far.

I tend to agree with you, whartonjelly. From what I have heard and read Cindy and George aren't exactly "functional" people. Apparently, George must have a problem with anger and self control or he wouldn't have pushed his father through a plate glass window a few years back. I agree that Casey was either born with a deficiency in her brain or her parents created this monster by spoiling her and/or abusing her. There are all kinds of abuse that can seriously harm and stunt the normal growth and maturity of a child. If Casey killed her child in the way that the prosecution seems to feel that she did, she is indeed sick. IF she WAS born this way I feel sorry for her. If the environment in the Anthony home was truly horrible she could also have learned to disassociate early on and live in another reality. If she truly suffered as a child in that home I feel sorry for her. What makes me the most sad is that her parents apparently never saw the signs that their daughter was a psycopath. I realize that Casey is probably the one who comitted this horrendous crime, but IF there was abuse, sexual or otherwise, and if in fact they created this monster, the parents bear some of the shame and responsibility for the death of this child. Unless a child is born with a mental defect that could turn him or her into an adult killer the cause can almost always be traced to childhood abuse. I am withholding an opinion as to whether or not George sexually abused Casey. When he was on the stand and asked if he did, he wasn't very convincing in his answer. Most pedophiles lie about the abuse they inflict on a child. It's possible that Casey is also a victim in all of this. It's also possible that we will never know the truth as to HOW this child died or WHY she died. Denial is a powerful coping mechanism that allows people to NOT deal with serious emotional issues. I'm wondering if this whole family has been immersed in deep denial for so long that they didn't even see that "the Emperor was wearing no clothes"?

[EdV]

.....In my opinion this Dr. was well prepared, was very knowledgeable and acted extremely well on the witness stand.
It is interesting that every analyst I have seen on TV or read about all agree he was very powerful for the defense.....

Well, Channel 9’s trial specialist, who is a recognized practicing attorney for over 33 years and is a former prosecutor, has a different opinion of the effectiveness of Dr. Spitz’s testimony on Saturday. Here’s a link to his thoughts:

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html

While I have formed an opinion on this case based on the prosecution’s evidence and their witness’s testimonies, I will reserve my final verdict until the defense rests it case and the final arguments have been made.

But the defense will need to come up with something more than what I have seen so far from their witnesses.

[jebartle]

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that witnessed opinions from pundits that felt that the defense is playing games!...I'm also reserving my conclusion until the end...I do think that Dr. Spitz was upset that he was NOT allowed to participate in the original autopsy, thereby making his cross less than believable!



Well, Channel 9’s trial specialist, who is a recognized practicing attorney for over 33 years and is a former prosecutor, has a different opinion of the effectiveness of Dr. Spitz’s testimony on Saturday. Here’s a link to his thoughts:

http://www.wftv.com/video/28281980/index.html

While I have formed an opinion on this case based on the prosecution’s evidence and their witness’s testimonies, I will reserve my final verdict until the defense rests it case and the final arguments have been made.

But the defense will need to come up with something more than what I have seen so far from their witnesses.

[PennBF]

I agree with most of the comments written by "VillagesFlorida". They are
pretty rationale. Anyone who is a Theryapist or has evey experienced
or read about "pedophiles" would understand the terrible impact it can
have on a child and how it could very easily lead to a "Disassociative
Disorder". It is almost like a "dual personality" caused by childhood abuse.
Most experienced Theryapists recognize and are familiar with the disorder and how it can be a result from sexual abuse as a child.
It is hard if not almost impossible for a normal person to either understand
or accept the disorder since they have either (a) not studied the disease or
(b) were not sexually abused as a child. There has been an accusation that the father sexually abused her. If that is the case then it could lead to
all sorts of mental disorders and problems. The philosophical question is how
much is the victim responsible and is further punishment called for or should
there be some empathy and treatment. As the famous psychiatrist said
when interviewed on TV, she may actually be the victim??:shrug:

[VillagesFlorida]

To quote a portion of the above post:

The philosophical question is how
much is the victim responsible and is further punishment called for or should
there be some empathy and treatment. As the famous psychiatrist said
when interviewed on TV, she may actually be the victim??:shrug:[/QUOTE]

Well, the second "victim" in this case, assuming that Casey WAS abused, is responsible, or seemingly so at this point. I'm not sure that being a psycopath will keep her from being punished. She more than likely, if found guilty of "something", will spend the rest of her life in prison. I would not feel comfortable knowing that she is out in society, should she be aquitted. She has no conscience and isn't capable of living by the same rules that we do. She IS sick and probably should live out her years in a mental hospital. This is such a sad case in that there may well be two victims here. No human being would ever wish to end up like Casey Anthony. There is no doubt in my mind that a deficiency of some sort, or severe trauma caused her to develop into an empty shell, a true sociopath who is not capable of feeling or caring about her fellow human beings.

[jebartle]

that Casey is FINALLY telling us the truth.... about sexual abuse......
:shrug::shrug::shrug:..... Have we forgotten about a sweet little 2 year old child that was tossed in the garbage....Oh my, I give up!...Might as well toss Cindy and George and Lee in the garbage also.....Geeeez!

[VillagesFlorida]

that Casey is FINALLY telling us the truth.... about sexual abuse......
:shrug::shrug::shrug:..... Have we forgotten about a sweet little 2 year old child that was tossed in the garbage....Oh my, I give up!...Might as well toss Cindy and George and Lee in the garbage also.....Geeeez!

I said "assuming that Casey was abused". We may never know for sure. What I know for certain is that "something" happened to cause this person to turn into a lying psychopath. I am sorry that the family has to go through this very traumatic event. All I am saying is that no child ends up like Casey Anthony unless there is horrible dysfunction in the family or she was born with a defect in her brain. This girl showed symptoms of psychopathic behavior for some time. She lived with her parents. Why didn't they see this? Denial is a powerful thing.

[Pturner]

I said "assuming that Casey was abused". We may never know for sure. What I know for certain is that "something" happened to cause this person to turn into a lying psychopath. I am sorry that the family has to go through this very traumatic event. All I am saying is that no child ends up like Casey Anthony unless there is horrible dysfunction in the family or she was born with a defect in her brain. This girl showed symptoms of psychopathic behavior for some time. She lived with her parents. Why didn't they see this? Denial is a powerful thing.

Not having watched the trial, I don't know whether she has been diagnosed with any mental defect or whether she has even been psychologically evaluated. However, I have read that psychopaths are masters at gaining sympathy and going undetected.

If she should not be punished and/or held criminally responsible in the event the jury decides that she committed homicide (of any degree), should all psychopaths go unpunished for heinous crimes? Should all sexual abuse victims?

[VillagesFlorida]

Not having watched the trial, I don't know whether she has been diagnosed with any mental defect or whether she has even been psychologically evaluated. However, I have read that psychopaths are masters at gaining sympathy and going undetected.

If she should not be punished and/or held criminally responsible in the event the jury decides that she committed homicide (of any degree), should all psychopaths go unpunished for heinous crimes? Should all sexual abuse victims?

No! Nothing excuses a "heinous" crime. All I am saying is that there is a reason why Casey is the way she is....perhaps in the end there will be an official diagnosis by someone skilled in these kinds of illnesses. An explanation as to why she is the way she is is not an excuse, but it might shed some light on WHY she did what she did. She DOES need to be locked up somewhere where she can never kill anyone else. I picture her in solitary confinement where she will have a very long time to contemplate what she has done. Lots of us were abandoned as children and we were abused, sexually and in other ways. WE didn't turn out to be killers. Was it sexual abuse that made Casey disassociate from reality? Who knows? I know that it CAN happen. If she takes the stand and says as much, will any of us believe her after so many lies? Probably not.

[dillywho]

Not having watched the trial, I don't know whether she has been diagnosed with any mental defect or whether she has even been psychologically evaluated. However, I have read that psychopaths are masters at gaining sympathy and going undetected.

If she should not be punished and/or held criminally responsible in the event the jury decides that she committed homicide (of any degree), should all psychopaths go unpunished for heinous crimes? Should all sexual abuse victims?

It doesn't appear anyone here thinks she should go unpunished. Rather, it's just a question of what is an appropriate punishment other than the death penalty. I, for one, do not think this warrants the death penalty but do think she is criminally responsible in some capacity.

I don't think, unless something changes drastically (and I don't see that happening), the truth will ever be known. The only absolute truth in this whole thing is that a child is dead. IMO, Casey should be put away somewhere for the rest of her days. I can't see her ever having the ability to be a viable contributor to society.

If the death penalty were to be consistently applied for extreme stupidity, lying, manipulation, etc., death row could not hold them all. With all the available drugs out there, both prescription and OTC, what's with the chloroform? Way too much trouble to concoct and super-super-stupid. Surely there were drugs readily available in that house that she could have "accidentally gotten into"...little ones do it all the time.

[PennBF]

A major concern I would have at this point is that so many have convicted her without hearing the defense? She may be a "liar", she may be a
sociopath, and the evidence may be 99% against her but there is still 1% that has not been said and I for one don't believe she should be hung before she has had a chance to defend herself. I do not believe in a "rush to judgement" !!
Many have hung her without so much as a word of defense. This is a capital case and therefore deserves all the justice system can provide.
If she is judged to be mentally unbalanced then I agree she should be placed in a secure mental institution as it is a well know fact that there is no
cure for a "sociopath". There is a great book titled "The Sociopath Next Door" which was written by a Psychiatrist at Harvard who spent he life studying sociopaths. I would recommend it as a good research tool for those who are interested. :bowdown:

[jebartle]

a good witness for the defense.....Wondering why he was called by Baez?

[PennBF]

I continued to be amazed by the performance of Baez ! It should be remembered that the State has 100's of support people at their call plus
almost if not totally unlimited funds. Baez has 2 or 3 Ass't Attorneys,'
a couple of para legals and he must be as technically bright as the State
attorney's who have all the support (e.g. total Orange County Justice
Dept, Attorney Gerneral and staff, Sheriff's dept, FBI, + all the others)
to put Casey to death.
It is unbelievable that Baez can go from technical issue to technical issue when cross examining state witnesses and then put on a defense case with
the limited resources and still be able to go technically toe to toe with all the witnesses.
Everyone looks at some of his misses and hesitations when questioning the witnesses. I would challenge anyone to try to defend someone against the unlimited resources of the state and with limited funds and incredible technical issues required to represent the client. WOW..!!!:bowdown:

[graciegirl]

I continued to be amazed by the performance of Baez ! It should be remembered that the State has 100's of support people at their call plus
almost if not totally unlimited funds. Baez has 2 or 3 Ass't Attorneys,'
a couple of para legals and he must be as technically bright as the State
attorney's who have all the support (e.g. total Orange County Justice
Dept, Attorney Gerneral and staff, Sheriff's dept, FBI, + all the others)
to put Casey to death.
It is unbelievable that Baez can go from technical issue to technical issue when cross examining state witnesses and then put on a defense case with
the limited resources and still be able to go technically toe to toe with all the witnesses.
Everyone looks at some of his misses and hesitations when questioning the witnesses. I would challenge anyone to try to defend someone against the unlimited resources of the state and with limited funds and incredible technical issues required to represent the client. WOW..!!!:bowdown:

Penn... The state is not charged with killing someone...they are prosecuting someone who is charged with killing someone. It is o.k. they have all the bells and whistles. AND I don't think Baez is going "toe to toe". I think he is fighting dirty, playing games and is ill prepared.

Just my humble opinion. But our Helene is really informed, she hasn't missed a morsel of testimony ......and I listen to her. She has wonderful common sense.

[dillywho]

There are so many inconsistencies on both sides that they are almost impossible to count. Today is only one example in many.

When Dr. Bock (I think that was her name) testified that Caylee's body had only been there about two weeks based on the forensic botany that she observed, primarily concerning fallen leaves (leaf litter), the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, brought up issues on cross as is his job. She seemed very credible, but then I'm not in the field to know the difference. My concern is with his argument about the muck surrounding the skull which he said indicated a much longer time. He said (and demonstrated with his hands) that the skull was buried in the muck up to the level of the eye sockets and at least mid-ear.

Now comes the question. Remember when Roy Kronk called in his find for the third time in December? He said that when he kicked at the bag (later he said picked it up) a human skull rolled out. Wouldn't that negate Ashton's statement about being buried in muck?

In the recap/replay in the news Baez couldn't get the drowning time right in his opening...early morning, sometime early afternoon, finally settling on early morning. The prosecution can't make up its mind whether to go for duct tape or chloroform.....now it's changed to both since neither one is totally supported.

Many of the legal analysts, most of which are lawyers themselves, are also getting put out with the judge and his often perceived bias (even by them). Remember, these same lawyers have occasion to have him as judge on their cases. It's also been said that he even slipped up at one time and referred to the prosecution as "we".

Baez needs to get his act together if he wants to save his client's life. He needs to realize that he doesn't have the luxury of doing it his way when it comes to orders. It ain't Burger King. Ashton needs to adjust his whiny attitude and stick to his business and quit tattling to the judge about Baez (he was texting, he needs to be sanctioned, etc.).

Our court system is not about numbers (at least it's not supposed to be). The prosecution has no interest at getting to the truth....only another win at all costs. I, for one, do care about the truth whatever that turns out to be.

[CMANN]

This is by far the sleaziest trial I have ever witnessed. This is supposed to be our criminal justice system.

I can understand the incompetence of the defense counsel but there is just no way to justify a sleazy prosecution.

C

[graciegirl]

Penn... The state is not charged with killing someone...they are prosecuting someone who is charged with killing someone. It is o.k. they have all the bells and whistles. AND I don't think Baez is going "toe to toe". I think he is fighting dirty, playing games and is ill prepared.

Just my humble opinion. But our Helene is really informed, she hasn't missed a morsel of testimony ......and I listen to her. She has wonderful common sense.

o.k. Penn, I reread that post and it does appear like I know she is guilty. Which I do.

You are right of course. Everyone does deserve a fair trial.I should not assume she is guilty until all of the facts are layed out.

But I just know instinctively, in my heart, that she is guilty. But I wouldn't like to put someone to death. Even her. But I am for the death penalty.

I know. It drives Sweetie crazy too, my form of "logic". He thinks she is guilty too, by the way.

You know the old adages. " If it walks like a duck....etc. And the other one, "If it smells like..............."

[Lou and Carolyn C.]

What mother would go 31 days without reporting to someone their child is missing unless they themselves had something to do with the disappearance and was waiting it out until push came to shove and had no other choice but to admit that the child was missing? How in the world could anyone hold that so close to themselves without a peep to someone else, it just doesn't make one ounce of since to me.:shrug:

[VillagesFlorida]

What mother would go 31 days without reporting to someone their child is missing unless they themselves had something to do with the disappearance and was waiting it out until push came to shove and had no other choice but to admit that the child was missing? How in the world could anyone hold that so close to themselves without a peep to someone else, it just doesn't make one ounce of since to me.:shrug:

A "sicko" could do that and I think she did. I, too, hate to say that she is guilty until all of the facts are in......but.........all of the circumstantial evidence, when viewed together, makes it very difficult to think any other way. The defense strategy seems to change every day and so far has not given me one reason to think that someone else is responsible for Caylee's death. I wait every day, hoping that my beliefs in this case will prove to be unfounded. But, every day the defense digs themselves a deeper hole. Sooner or later the "dirt" is going to cave in and bury this team. Baez's credibility with the jury has to be on a miniscule level at this point. I say let's wait until he finishes presenting his case. Will he give us some evidence that is believable, that Casey drowned, or will he spew forth another bunch of lies, hoping that we and the jury are gullible enough to believe them? At this point I'm thinkin' that Casey's lying behavior has rubbed off on Jose.......or, is lying what this lawyer does when backed into a corner and sees no other way to defend his client?

[PennBF]

I think the real dirty tricks are coming from the State. To illustrate why I say this: (a) The state attorney's continue to object in order to destroy any
continuance of statements by the witness. Is this legal..? Yes. Is it a trick to divert the testimony..? Yes, (b) The State fully recognizes they have the judge in their pocket and are using it to their advantage. Last night Greta
VanSustren said that in all of her experiences she has never witnessed a judge so bias against a defense..So it is not just me saying it. This was followed up by additional attorney's agreeing. (c) the state gave the defense a copy or original hard drive from the family laptop. Rather than identifying
what they may discuss they left open all items on the laptop. I can assure you that if I gave someone my hard drive, said I might pick some things off for proof it would take the full staff of the Dept of Commerce of the US to determine potential usage. It was unfair and a trick. There are many more but too many to put in a note. (d) I have to also add, how many times have you heard the State Attorney say: "Are you telling me?" or Are you saying that"? These are all leading questions but how many times have you heard the judge tell him to restate his question??
Just some thoughts..:bowdown:

[jebartle]

Just out of curiosity, Were you a defense attorney?....I can give you as many attorneys that feel the prosecution is doing an OUTSTANDING job and Baez is a dirt bag.....As far as bias by the Judge, that is a bunch of crap!.....If anything he has been more than accommodating to that little liars sneaky attorney!!!!......If you don't think that Baez didn't have an ulterior motive for accommodating the court order, that is very sad.....I will give you this, Baez certainly did not have the resources that OJ Simpson had and for that reason he has resorted to sneaky legal maneuvers...






I think the real dirty tricks are coming from the State. To illustrate why I say this: (a) The state attorney's continue to object in order to destroy any
continuance of statements by the witness. Is this legal..? Yes. Is it a trick to divert the testimony..? Yes, (b) The State fully recognizes they have the judge in their pocket and are using it to their advantage. Last night Greta
VanSustren said that in all of her experiences she has never witnessed a judge so bias against a defense..So it is not just me saying it. This was followed up by additional attorney's agreeing. (c) the state gave the defense a copy or original hard drive from the family laptop. Rather than identifying
what they may discuss they left open all items on the laptop. I can assure you that if I gave someone my hard drive, said I might pick some things off for proof it would take the full staff of the Dept of Commerce of the US to determine potential usage. It was unfair and a trick. There are many more but too many to put in a note. (d) I have to also add, how many times have you heard the State Attorney say: "Are you telling me?" or Are you saying that"? These are all leading questions but how many times have you heard the judge tell him to restate his question??
Just some thoughts..:bowdown:

[Freeda]

Looked at FL statutes a little last night; learned that murder 1 (ie, capital offense, death penalty eligible - but of course, the jury can recommend a lesser sentence) can be either if the death was premeditated or occurred as a result of 'aggravated child abuse' (which is another offense that she is charged with). Also, if it occurred from a 'depraved' (the statute's term - but I think in general this implies an 'evil', 'ill will') state of mind, it can become murder in 2nd degree (ie, not eligible for death penalty) - but not if premeditated.

Also, if she had planned to use insanity as an offense (ie, a state of actually being delusional, 'hearing voices', etc., which I don't think is what is involved here), that has to be pled before the trial (I think sometime at the beginning of the case). As far as I've heard she has not raised insanity as a defense.

It all remains to be seen. I have only been watching off and on; would imagine it's alot for the jury to digest and retain. Closing arguments will be amazing to hear.

[dillywho]

The State may be trying to pull some fast ones, too. Surely the State has done some research on Roy Kronk and knows this:

Remember what I said previously about Roy Kronk? This morning, Tony Pipitone pointed out that the photos shown yesterday of Caylee's skull in the woods showed that it was buried up to the eye sockets in muck. He also said that Roy Kronk said when he made his "find" that when the skull rolled out, he picked it up by an eye socket and then put it down. (Gracie, would you ask Helene if she remembers this since she's following it all closely as well?) Wonder how he will testify at trial? Kronk's prior statements should be on tape or tv footage somewhere. Could he be involved in some way?

Like I've said before, Casey knows exactly what happened. Guilty of murder warranting the death penalty? I can't see that, yet. The trial still has a long way to go. The truth is out there somewhere, but it may be hidden so well that it can never be found in total.

[dillywho]

Just out of curiosity, Were you a defense attorney?....I can give you as many attorneys that feel the prosecution is doing an OUTSTANDING job and Baez is a dirt bag.....As far as bias by the Judge, that is a bunch of crap!.....If anything he has been more than accommodating to that little liars sneaky attorney!!!!......If you don't think that Baez didn't have an ultimate motive for accommodating the court order, that is very sad.....I will give you this, Baez certainly did not have the resources that OJ Simpson had and for that reason he has resorted to sneaky legal maneuvers...

Many of the legal analysts, most of which are lawyers themselves, are also getting put out with the judge and his often perceived bias (even by them). Remember, these same lawyers have occasion to have him as judge on their cases. It's also been said that he even slipped up at one time and referred to the prosecution as "we".

[rubicon]

Based on the aforementioned comments Baez is succeeding in muddy up the waters. And when it is all said and done it adds up to nothing thus far. Perhaps 6/23 and going forward Baez will introduce something of substance.

Perhaps Judge Perry should have gotten more involved in Baez's representing Anthony. he clearly is not qualified and the judge has been attempting damage control so as to not permit an appel by anthony based on poor representation

I continue to stay with evidence that has not been disproved. Casey is a habitual liar, she ignore a missing childfor 31 days, she partied hardy during those days, she fabricated ames of people and places and that she was working. the forensic will be a wash beacuse Caylee was not found until six months later and too late to make an affirmations

[jebartle]

Just forwarded your note to WFTV and this was their response!

Thanks for sending that along. I haven't heard of any attorneys saying they are put out with the judge, nor have I heard any suggest that he is biased in any way. I'll certainly check with our legal analyst, who is very familiar with those in the legal community here, and see what he has to say.
Thanks so much,
Bruce







Many of the legal analysts, most of which are lawyers themselves, are also getting put out with the judge and his often perceived bias (even by them). Remember, these same lawyers have occasion to have him as judge on their cases. It's also been said that he even slipped up at one time and referred to the prosecution as "we".

[Pturner]

I think the real dirty tricks are coming from the State. To illustrate why I say this: (a) The state attorney's continue to object in order to destroy any
continuance of statements by the witness. Is this legal..? Yes. Is it a trick to divert the testimony..? Yes, (b) The State fully recognizes they have the judge in their pocket and are using it to their advantage. Last night Greta
VanSustren said that in all of her experiences she has never witnessed a judge so bias against a defense..So it is not just me saying it. This was followed up by additional attorney's agreeing. (c) the state gave the defense a copy or original hard drive from the family laptop. Rather than identifying
what they may discuss they left open all items on the laptop. I can assure you that if I gave someone my hard drive, said I might pick some things off for proof it would take the full staff of the Dept of Commerce of the US to determine potential usage. It was unfair and a trick. There are many more but too many to put in a note. (d) I have to also add, how many times have you heard the State Attorney say: "Are you telling me?" or Are you saying that"? These are all leading questions but how many times have you heard the judge tell him to restate his question??
Just some thoughts..:bowdown:

This is curious to me. Discovery often involves hard disks and/or boxes upon boxes of paperwork. I've never heard of an attorney having to highlight portions of it for the other side. Is that indeed a requirement?

[dillywho]

Just forwarded your note to WFTV and this was their response!

Thanks for sending that along. I haven't heard of any attorneys saying they are put out with the judge, nor have I heard any suggest that he is biased in any way. I'll certainly check with our legal analyst, who is very familiar with those in the legal community here, and see what he has to say.
Thanks so much,
Bruce

The attorney is the attorney associated with WOFLD (Channel 434 Comcast HD) by the name of Diane (something...can't come up with her last name right now). Maybe you can see what they have to say about it at that station, too. It might be interesting to compare the two station responses.

She was also on Greta Van Sustren's (she's a lawyer, too) show along with some other attorneys and they pretty much alluded to the same thing. They did not say that he is biased but that is how he seems to be coming across. She said that she (Diane) has tried many cases in his court and always found him very fair in those cases.

I've been flipping through all the channels just to get their different perspectives because like the rest of us, they vary greatly. WKMG (Channel 6 or ***) and WESH (Channel 11 or 432) are my favorites with WKMG first. They seem to be the most in the middle.

[dillywho]

I think the real dirty tricks are coming from the State. To illustrate why I say this: (a) The state attorney's continue to object in order to destroy any
continuance of statements by the witness. Is this legal..? Yes. Is it a trick to divert the testimony..? Yes, (b) The State fully recognizes they have the judge in their pocket and are using it to their advantage. Last night Greta
VanSustren said that in all of her experiences she has never witnessed a judge so bias against a defense..So it is not just me saying it. This was followed up by additional attorney's agreeing. (c) the state gave the defense a copy or original hard drive from the family laptop. Rather than identifying
what they may discuss they left open all items on the laptop. I can assure you that if I gave someone my hard drive, said I might pick some things off for proof it would take the full staff of the Dept of Commerce of the US to determine potential usage. It was unfair and a trick. There are many more but too many to put in a note. (d) I have to also add, how many times have you heard the State Attorney say: "Are you telling me?" or Are you saying that"? These are all leading questions but how many times have you heard the judge tell him to restate his question??
Just some thoughts..:bowdown:

Jeff Ashton was really toned down today. It certainly made his cross more effective. He still got in plenty of leading questions, though. I'm glad someone else has noticed that he pretty much gets away with it, too, but Baez does not.

It does seem amiss that the defense team did not focus on the hard drive entries concerning the dates that they had to know would come into play without being told specifically which ones they were. That's really a no-brainer and a big screw-up on their part. I didn't take it as a trick or unfair on the prosecution's part. There was no mention about how old the computer was so of course there would be meaningless and totally unrelated stuff on it. They wouldn't need to sift through more than a few months prior to July 15. (By the way, it was a desktop and not her laptop. That's why the efforts to see where everyone was since they all had access to it. I understand Casey also had a personal laptop, but I don't think they've said anything about it, have they?)

[Barefoot]

I think the real dirty tricks are coming from the State. To illustrate why I say this: (a) The state attorney's continue to object in order to destroy any continuance of statements by the witness. Is this legal..? Yes. Is it a trick to divert the testimony..? Yes,
(b) The State fully recognizes they have the judge in their pocket and are using it to their advantage.

The State has the judge in it's pocket? We must be watching different trial coverage. I personally think the judge is being very fair.

[Freeda]

I heard from one of the commentators that apparently the prosecution plans to show from the Anthonys' computer hard drive that on the day that Caylee was last seen (and, so, would be the day of the alleged drowning), there were computer transmissions (ie, emails, etc?) which would show that George was on the computer doing ordinary stuff during the time frame that the drowning would be alleged to have happened and the discovery of the body in the pool etc; thus to blow a huge hole in the drowning scenario.

I also heard that the prosecution has a witness who is a young woman in jail (for something else) who in actuality did have her toddler drown in a home pool, be found by the grandfather, etc; and the prosecution will offer this to show that Casey somehow heard that story and decided to adopt it as her own account.

The problem that this will all leave Casey with is that, since the nanny abduction scenario was clearly a lie, and the drowning (if Casey testifies to that scenario) will I think be easily shown to be a lie, she could be convicted of a capital offense no matter whether the jury believes that the death was deliberate or that it occurred unintentionally as a result of over- sedation from chloroforming, since that could be seen as aggravated child abuse. The jury could conclude (and probably would have to, since no other explanations have been suggested) that one of these two things happened - otherwise, why not just tell what really did happen, if there is some yet 'unheard' exculpitating explanation for what happened to Caylee, and throw yourself on the mercy of the jury and the Court?

I don't think the jury will or should allow a parent to just sit there and give no explanation (other than two completely fictional explanations) of the circumstances that lead to a healthy child who was in their care ending up dead, and the death and the body hidden for weeks, without the jury reasonably inferring, especially with all of the other evidence, that the silence (and the alleged scenarios which were shown to be lies) must mean that the truth, if told, would be incriminating.

[PennBF]

Regarding the opinion that allegedly the Judge is leaning to the State is strongly based on some commentary I have heard on the news. Last night
Greta Susteren made the comment that (paraphasing) she has never
seen such judical leaning to the State. It would not be a surprise since the
Judge was a Prosecutor for the State and I heard he was the attorney that
sent the 1st woman to death row in Florida. I would not swear to this but did hear from someone who may have the knowledge.
I am not a supporter of the defense and not a supporter for the State. I am a supporter for a fair trial and not a rush to judgement. I am definitely not an attorney, (have served on a Jury, served on a Grand Jury and worked with a famous Law Firm on Wall Street for 5 years). This does not qualify me to be anything but a regular citizen following the trial. :bowdown:

[CaliforniaGirl]

Jeff Ashton was really toned down today. It certainly made his cross more effective. He still got in plenty of leading questions, though. I'm glad someone else has noticed that he pretty much gets away with it, too, but Baez does not.

Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination but not on direct examination. We're now hearing the defense's case, so Jeff Ashton can ask all the leading questions he wants but Jose Baez cannot.

[Barefoot]

Penn... The state is not charged with killing someone...they are prosecuting someone who is charged with killing someone. It is o.k. they have all the bells and whistles. AND I don't think Baez is going "toe to toe". I think he is fighting dirty, playing games and is ill prepared.

Just my humble opinion. But our Helene is really informed, she hasn't missed a morsel of testimony ......and I listen to her. She has wonderful common sense.

I think you and Helene are right about Baez. I haven't heard any of the analysts say that the Judge is being unfair, quite the contrary.

[jebartle]

GOOD day for the defense! State attorney Jeff Ashton gets a little emotional and this time it came back and "bit him"...Not sure where the leap from what was said (impeaching the witness)to miss trail.....And I still don't understand how the state made the leap that Cindy was NOT the "chloroform" computer user AND did not check with Cindy's supervisor regarding her work history during the chloroform computer searches...Reasonable to assume that even thou the computer shows no connection between chloroform and chlorophyll thru a miss type or similar prefix..If they are looking for reasonable doubt....Hmmm! They may have found it!

[jackz]

GOOD day for the defense! State attorney Jeff Ashton gets a little emotional and this time it came back and "bit him"...Not sure where the leap from what was said (impeaching the witness)to miss trail.....And I still don't understand how the state made the leap that Cindy was NOT the "chloroform" computer user AND did not check with Cindy's supervisor regarding her work history during the chloroform computer searches...Reasonable to assume that even thou the computer shows no connection between chloroform and chlorophyll thru a miss type or similar prefix..If they are looking for reasonable doubt....Hmmm! They may have found it!

The prosecutor ascertained in cross of the Police Sgt Computer expert , who read the logs of the computer searches, that the search for chloroform occured 3 seconds prior to a myspace search on the same computer. Cindy previously testified that she has never had a myspace account. Bottom line, the person searching for chloroform was also the person searching for myspace. I think Cindy just committed perjury.