[Pturner]

Originally Posted by CMANN

just so that nobody will think I'm taking sides, you are wrong.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. You can twist it anyway that makes you feel better but she was found to be innocent.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. She was not proven guilty.

Hi CMANN,
The problem with Hollywood shortcuts is that they are misleading. It would be physically impossible for a defendant to actually be innocent until proven guilty, inasmuch as the alleged crime takes place before the trial.

The legal standard is that the accused is "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

Innocence is a legal presumption in court, not a statement of the facts of the case. Indeed, the very reason our legal system has no mechanism for a verdict of innocent is because the presumption standard relieves the defense of any burden to prove a defendant innocent.

Yes, I suppose anyone can twist it anyway that makes them feel better, but she was not found to be innocent.

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Hi CMANN,
The problem with Hollywood shortcuts is that they are misleading. It would be physically impossible for a defendant to actually be innocent until proven guilty, inasmuch as the alleged crime takes place before the trial.

The legal standard is that the accused is "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

Innocence is a legal presumption in court, not a statement of the facts of the case. Indeed, the very reason our legal system has no mechanism for a verdict of innocent is because the presumption standard relieves the defense of any burden to prove a defendant innocent.

Yes, I suppose anyone can twist it anyway that makes them feel better, but she was not found to be innocent.

You are aware I hope, that the defendant has no burden to prove anything.

Proving ones innocents is to prove that a thing did not happen. We all know that one cannot prove a negative. Thus the presumption of innocents UNTIL proven guilty.

The Constitution says in the Fifth Amendment, "no one may be placed in double jeopardy for crime for which he has already been tried and found innocent." By your standard you would be telling us that since this person was found not guilty because the government could not prove the case then she should be tried again.

I'm sorry, the child died. Very sorry. I'm very sorry if Casey got away with something. I am not, however sorry that our system of justice worked the way it was supposed to. There are other more efficient systems of law. Would you rather that we had one of those?

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by CMANN

You are aware I hope, that the defendant has no burden to prove anything.

Proving ones innocents is to prove that a thing did not happen. We all know that one cannot prove a negative. Thus the presumption of innocents UNTIL proven guilty.

The Constitution says in the Fifth Amendment, "no one may be placed in double jeopardy for crime for which he has already been tried and found innocent." By your standard you would be telling us that since this person was found not guilty because the government could not prove the case then she should be tried again.

I'm sorry, the child died. Very sorry. I'm very sorry if Casey got away with something. I am not, however sorry that our system of justice worked the way it was supposed to. There are other more efficient systems of law. Would you rather that we had one of those?

Yes, the defense does not have to prove anything. Not sure why you put words in my mouth about double jeopardy, or misquoted the Fifth Amendment. At any rate, for the record, the double-jeopardy clause states, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...".

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by CMANN

just so that nobody will think I'm taking sides, you are wrong. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. You can twist it anyway that makes you feel better but she was found to be innocent. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. She was not proven guilty.

The media is reporting that we are starting to hear from jury members. And some of the jurors are saying they do NOT think that Casey is innocent. But that they didn't have enough concrete evidence to vote her guilty.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by CMANN

You are aware I hope, that the defendant has no burden to prove anything.

Proving ones innocents is to prove that a thing did not happen. We all know that one cannot prove a negative. Thus the presumption of innocents UNTIL proven guilty.

The Constitution says in the Fifth Amendment, "no one may be placed in double jeopardy for crime for which he has already been tried and found innocent." By your standard you would be telling us that since this person was found not guilty because the government could not prove the case then she should be tried again.

I'm sorry, the child died. Very sorry. I'm very sorry if Casey got away with something. I am not, however sorry that our system of justice worked the way it was supposed to. There are other more efficient systems of law. Would you rather that we had one of those?

No.

I know in MY heart she is not innocent, because I have lived on this earth more than seven decades...and have seen a lot of ducks walking...

I know in my heart she is not innocent of her daughter's death.

I also know that she will do something else horribly wrong and the justice system will catch up with her.

I also know that a lot of OTHER people also see that she is not being punished as she should be.

This is my opinion.

She walked free. She IS guilty. That is MY opinion.

In the old days, being tried by a jury of your peers was more fair. NOW the general public, the jury pool, have this amazing ability to know what is happening all over the world, most of it, MOST of it, fairly reported to us by telecommunication of every kind. Now we are forced to choose a jury who are a bunch of people who are NOT aware of the happenings of the world in the same way as MOST of us,. We then choose people who choose not to be interested in life around them, and/or do not pay attention to the things that are happening. and this diminishes their ability to judge fairly,and intelligently, in my opinion.

Just twenty years ago I would not think any differently about a person who did not choose to use a computer. Now I think about how uninformed they are.

My opinion. ONLY mine.

[graciegirl]

Now I have to let my friend Karen kick me. Yesterday I said to her I would not post on here ever again and if I did she should kick me.

[red tail]

after watching this particular post evolve i have seen a lot of people on here in a different light than before. i hope its their emotions talking and not their true feelings.

[dillywho]

Like Gracie, I intended to give this a rest. Oh, well.

Do I like Casey..no. Do I think she is innocent..no, but they did not prove her guilty of murder. Do I think she is guilty of murder...I don't know, could be. Do I think she is in any way responsible for her death...absolutely, I just don't know how or to what extent other than it "happened on her watch".

The State did drop the ball in numerous ways. If you heard the States Attorney's press conference, he said that this was a "dry bones case" which are the most difficult to prove. All the more reason they should have had all their T's crossed and their I's dotted. He didn't like the verdict either, but accepted it without rancor. In its zeal to get the biggie, the State failed to charge her with child neglect. I believe she could have received a guilty verdict on this one. Caylee was in her care the last time she was apparently seen. I say apparently because someone else could have been present. Who knows? Child abuse and child neglect are not one in the same in legal definition. Maybe they should be, but they are not. She can't be punished for something that isn't even charged.

Brad Conway, one of the Anthony's former attorneys, pointed out that the State did not follow up on the allegations of sexual abuse by not talking to former school teachers, neighbors, other family members. They just kinda brushed it off thinking the jury would do the same. One juror even said that George seemed to be hiding something in all his testimonies. The jury didn't buy into his "suicide attempt", either but didn't say exactly why. My biggest flag on that is of why would he address Cindy as Cynthia Marie throughout? He usually referred to her as "my wife, Cindy". I have asked several others about this and it seems really strange to them as well. What guilt and failure was he talking about? The prosecution didn't even ask Cindy if Casey had ever told her anything regarding any sexual abuse. In all fairness, I'm not sure the defense did either. If not, they should have. They asked George, but that's all.

The State couldn't see past the chloroform. They relied on some unproven testing and didn't even check beyond her house and car when they didn't find any evidence (other than the air sampling) of it those places. What about her numerous boyfriends' houses and cars? Why weren't they asked if Casey ever mixed up anything at their houses or if they had ever seen anything really odd in her possession, if they wanted to build their case on it? There was never any evidence of purchase. They didn't ask if Caylee ever seemed unusally sleepy or lethargic since she seemed to be a very energetic child in videos? If Casey made it anywhere, someone should have known something. If she bought it, how and where, and did anyone ever see it? If the computer searches were done in mid-March, then why did she wait until June to kill her with it? Why wasn't DNA testing done on the maggots found in the car? That would have been more compelling than air testing since it is proven and accepted throughout the forensics community and courts.

It seemed that even Judge Perry had/has his doubts about her innocence. I think he knows or thinks he knows that she did something. He also knows that by law you cannot convict on that basis or on emotion. He even said so about the jurors when he denied the press's lawyer's request for the release of juror names. Just prior to sending them out to deliberate, he instructed the jury that they could not base their verdict on whether or not they liked someone, whether or not they approved or disapproved of that persons actions or lifestyle, their looks or age or race, or any other emotions, but only on the evidence that they would hear in court. Based on what some of them have said about what they think or thought, that's exactly what they did..followed instructions. As Judge Perry said, they didn't have access to what everyone else did such as television, papers, internet, etc. They weren't bombarded on a daily basis with all the hype and emotion. They were only allowed to hear what was permitted in their presence. (Pop Tarts, Judge Perry called them for having to be sent out so much so he could rule on the admissibility of testimony, etc.)

If Dr. G. had not ruled this a homicide in the first place and just left the cause as undetermined, this whole trial mess would have been avoided. They had plenty of other charges to use. If proof came to light at a later date that she did really intentionally kill her, then murder charges could have been made. Murder has no statute of limitations. Double jeopardy would not have been an issue. Now it is.

If lessons were learned by all (and I think there were many), then Caylee did not die for nothing. If Casey really is an outright killer that walked, then maybe there's a greater chance that the next one (and there will be another) won't because of this case and the mistakes made.

[sandybill2]

Just read on msn that "She" is not being released until July 17--not July 13--as originally reported. Also read that there is a new law that is being considered--called "Caylee's Law"---which will make it a felony NOT to report a missing child. Maybe, if passed, this law will help convict those involved of something other than "lying" when a child is thrown away like garbage. We can only hope.

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by dillywho

Like Gracie, I intended to give this a rest. Oh, well.

Do I like Casey..no. Do I think she is innocent..no, but they did not prove her guilty of murder. Do I think she is guilty of murder...I don't know, could be. Do I think she is in any way responsible for her death...absolutely, I just don't know how or to what extent other than it "happened on her watch".

The State did drop the ball in numerous ways. If you heard the States Attorney's press conference, he said that this was a "dry bones case" which are the most difficult to prove. All the more reason they should have had all their T's crossed and their I's dotted. He didn't like the verdict either, but accepted it without rancor. In its zeal to get the biggie, the State failed to charge her with child neglect. I believe she could have received a guilty verdict on this one. Caylee was in her care the last time she was apparently seen. I say apparently because someone else could have been present. Who knows? Child abuse and child neglect are not one in the same in legal definition. Maybe they should be, but they are not. She can't be punished for something that isn't even charged.

Brad Conway, one of the Anthony's former attorneys, pointed out that the State did not follow up on the allegations of sexual abuse by not talking to former school teachers, neighbors, other family members. They just kinda brushed it off thinking the jury would do the same. One juror even said that George seemed to be hiding something in all his testimonies. The jury didn't buy into his "suicide attempt", either but didn't say exactly why. My biggest flag on that is of why would he address Cindy as Cynthia Marie throughout? He usually referred to her as "my wife, Cindy". I have asked several others about this and it seems really strange to them as well. What guilt and failure was he talking about? The prosecution didn't even ask Cindy if Casey had ever told her anything regarding any sexual abuse. In all fairness, I'm not sure the defense did either. If not, they should have. They asked George, but that's all.

The State couldn't see past the chloroform. They relied on some unproven testing and didn't even check beyond her house and car when they didn't find any evidence (other than the air sampling) of it those places. What about her numerous boyfriends' houses and cars? Why weren't they asked if Casey ever mixed up anything at their houses or if they had ever seen anything really odd in her possession, if they wanted to build their case on it? There was never any evidence of purchase. They didn't ask if Caylee ever seemed unusally sleepy or lethargic since she seemed to be a very energetic child in videos? If Casey made it anywhere, someone should have known something. If she bought it, how and where, and did anyone ever see it? If the computer searches were done in mid-March, then why did she wait until June to kill her with it? Why wasn't DNA testing done on the maggots found in the car? That would have been more compelling than air testing since it is proven and accepted throughout the forensics community and courts.

It seemed that even Judge Perry had/has his doubts about her innocence. I think he knows or thinks he knows that she did something. He also knows that by law you cannot convict on that basis or on emotion. He even said so about the jurors when he denied the press's lawyer's request for the release of juror names. Just prior to sending them out to deliberate, he instructed the jury that they could not base their verdict on whether or not they liked someone, whether or not they approved or disapproved of that persons actions or lifestyle, their looks or age or race, or any other emotions, but only on the evidence that they would hear in court. Based on what some of them have said about what they think or thought, that's exactly what they did..followed instructions. As Judge Perry said, they didn't have access to what everyone else did such as television, papers, internet, etc. They weren't bombarded on a daily basis with all the hype and emotion. They were only allowed to hear what was permitted in their presence. (Pop Tarts, Judge Perry called them for having to be sent out so much so he could rule on the admissibility of testimony, etc.)

If Dr. G. had not ruled this a homicide in the first place and just left the cause as undetermined, this whole trial mess would have been avoided. They had plenty of other charges to use. If proof came to light at a later date that she did really intentionally kill her, then murder charges could have been made. Murder has no statute of limitations. Double jeopardy would not have been an issue. Now it is.

If lessons were learned by all (and I think there were many), then Caylee did not die for nothing. If Casey really is an outright killer that walked, then maybe there's a greater chance that the next one (and there will be another) won't because of this case and the mistakes made.

Excellent post.

My cousin watched every second of the OJ trial and said there was no way he could be convicted on the evidence presented. Casey was found "not guilty" based on the evidence presented.

IMHO - I think both were not innocent in their respective matters.

I too intend to let it rest.

[ilovetv]

One of the big unknowns is "who put the duct tape on Caylee's mouth/nose?". Not that I want Casey excused, but I keep thinking it's possible her father was the one who put the duct tape on the child. It is possible he had sexually abused his daughter, and maybe he moved on to do the same with the granddaughter....who was starting to tell about it and he wanted her silenced. He seems like a ticking time bomb, and as an experienced cop, he certainly knows how to mess up evidence and trails to it.

[bkcunningham1]

The thing that bothers me with the speculation that Casey was sexually abused and perhaps her father was abusing Caylee and she drowned on his watch is; why would Casey go about her merry way partying it up after she knew Caylee was dead? Why would she have covered up where she was with her mother and tell lie after lie about her whereabouts? Why would she get the new tattoo? I really don't think abuse in any form is justification for child abuse, child neglect, man slaughter, murder, et al. If she is that psychotic from abuse at the hands of her father, God help us all when she is released.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

The thing that bothers me with the speculation that Casey was sexually abused and perhaps her father was abusing Caylee and she drowned on his watch is; why would Casey go about her merry way partying it up after she knew Caylee was dead? Why would she have covered up where she was with her mother and tell lie after lie about her whereabouts? Why would she get the new tattoo? I really don't think abuse in any form is justification for child abuse, child neglect, man slaughter, murder, et al. If she is that psychotic from abuse at the hands of her father, God help us all when she is released.

Drowning was not confirmed as a mode of death, but maybe the child died from suffocation from the 3 pieces of duct tape taped over her mouth and nose. Maybe, (and not to excuse Casey in the least) the father was keeping Casey quiet by threatening to accuse her and turn the evidence toward her if she were to report Caylee missing or found dead at the house. He could have had her pinned between a rock and a hard place for "knowing too much". I don't trust the dad at all (and I don't think Casey's innocent either). He seems expertly wily, and suicidally anxious.

[eremite06]

The duct tape was applied to make it look like an abduction by the "nanny." Chloroform was mentioned to Padilla's cohort, the blond woman, who was acting as Casey's bodyguard and stayed in the Anthony's home for 9 days. This was during the time she was on house arrest and bonded out, in '08.
These parents did nothing but badger and berate Casey her whole life. Casey often regressed to child-like behavior and saw her daughter as her replacement. She had a very contentious relationship with her mother and the child was used as a pawn on both sides. Cindy thought nothing of berating and embarrassing Casey in front of her friends. She wanted Casey to pay back the family for the medical bills incurred during Cayley's birth.

I think the Anthony family made this monster. More and more of this dysfunctional dynamic is starting to come out.

I want to know......What about that syringe found in Casey's car????

[senior citizen]

Originally Posted by dillywho

Like Gracie, I intended to give this a rest. Oh, well.

Do I like Casey..no. Do I think she is innocent..no, but they did not prove her guilty of murder. Do I think she is guilty of murder...I don't know, could be. Do I think she is in any way responsible for her death...absolutely, I just don't know how or to what extent other than it "happened on her watch".

The State did drop the ball in numerous ways. If you heard the States Attorney's press conference, he said that this was a "dry bones case" which are the most difficult to prove. All the more reason they should have had all their T's crossed and their I's dotted. He didn't like the verdict either, but accepted it without rancor. In its zeal to get the biggie, the State failed to charge her with child neglect. I believe she could have received a guilty verdict on this one. Caylee was in her care the last time she was apparently seen. I say apparently because someone else could have been present. Who knows? Child abuse and child neglect are not one in the same in legal definition. Maybe they should be, but they are not. She can't be punished for something that isn't even charged.

Brad Conway, one of the Anthony's former attorneys, pointed out that the State did not follow up on the allegations of sexual abuse by not talking to former school teachers, neighbors, other family members. They just kinda brushed it off thinking the jury would do the same. One juror even said that George seemed to be hiding something in all his testimonies. The jury didn't buy into his "suicide attempt", either but didn't say exactly why. My biggest flag on that is of why would he address Cindy as Cynthia Marie throughout? He usually referred to her as "my wife, Cindy". I have asked several others about this and it seems really strange to them as well. What guilt and failure was he talking about? The prosecution didn't even ask Cindy if Casey had ever told her anything regarding any sexual abuse. In all fairness, I'm not sure the defense did either. If not, they should have. They asked George, but that's all.

The State couldn't see past the chloroform. They relied on some unproven testing and didn't even check beyond her house and car when they didn't find any evidence (other than the air sampling) of it those places. What about her numerous boyfriends' houses and cars? Why weren't they asked if Casey ever mixed up anything at their houses or if they had ever seen anything really odd in her possession, if they wanted to build their case on it? There was never any evidence of purchase. They didn't ask if Caylee ever seemed unusally sleepy or lethargic since she seemed to be a very energetic child in videos? If Casey made it anywhere, someone should have known something. If she bought it, how and where, and did anyone ever see it? If the computer searches were done in mid-March, then why did she wait until June to kill her with it? Why wasn't DNA testing done on the maggots found in the car? That would have been more compelling than air testing since it is proven and accepted throughout the forensics community and courts.

It seemed that even Judge Perry had/has his doubts about her innocence. I think he knows or thinks he knows that she did something. He also knows that by law you cannot convict on that basis or on emotion. He even said so about the jurors when he denied the press's lawyer's request for the release of juror names. Just prior to sending them out to deliberate, he instructed the jury that they could not base their verdict on whether or not they liked someone, whether or not they approved or disapproved of that persons actions or lifestyle, their looks or age or race, or any other emotions, but only on the evidence that they would hear in court. Based on what some of them have said about what they think or thought, that's exactly what they did..followed instructions. As Judge Perry said, they didn't have access to what everyone else did such as television, papers, internet, etc. They weren't bombarded on a daily basis with all the hype and emotion. They were only allowed to hear what was permitted in their presence. (Pop Tarts, Judge Perry called them for having to be sent out so much so he could rule on the admissibility of testimony, etc.)

If Dr. G. had not ruled this a homicide in the first place and just left the cause as undetermined, this whole trial mess would have been avoided. They had plenty of other charges to use. If proof came to light at a later date that she did really intentionally kill her, then murder charges could have been made. Murder has no statute of limitations. Double jeopardy would not have been an issue. Now it is.

If lessons were learned by all (and I think there were many), then Caylee did not die for nothing. If Casey really is an outright killer that walked, then maybe there's a greater chance that the next one (and there will be another) won't because of this case and the mistakes made.

Very, very well written.........extremely insightful.

I have the same doubts about George Anthony.

I also thought she would, at the very least, be charged with child neglect.

Also, Dr. Drew, psychologist, recently asked the same question I did.

Why didn't either the prosecution or the defense bring up the fact that Casey had a seizure prior to all of this and was taken to the hospital??

There must have been some type of brain exam. She had also told a close friend that she felt she was going insane. Speculation is that the seizure was from drug use or heavy drinking......but who knows?

Again, no matter what fame or notoriety (or money) Casey gains, her daughter's death will haunt her for eternity.

I feel sorry for the judge, who said he can't even walk across the street to get his lunch now.....for fear of being attacked, I assume. To quote him, as we only saw him briefly on the news.......he said that some folks want to filet and pour salt into the wounds (of the jurists or whom ever was involved in the verdict). Hopefully all of those Orlando folks will settle down and become obsessed with another case, of which I can see there are many (in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper).

I can have reasonable doubt and "imagine" that perhaps George, afraid of Cindy, staged a kidnapping and it really did snowball out of control with the duct tape (which my husband thinks was to keep bugs and snakes out of the child's mouth) and heart shaped sticker........but perhaps didn't realize the extent of this coverup or how savvy the Orange County detectives really are.

It is quite possible she died in an accidental drowning....and they both panicked. But how much easier it would have been to call 911.

My husband thinks the child might have died of heat in a hot car trunk, forgotten by Casey while at the "club". ......again, a coverup by George....or perhaps a faked drowning and then the double coverup. Unless one of them eventually cracks, no one will ever know for sure.

Didn't she date several young police cadets or officers , who later resigned?
Why didn't the police check the site sooner...when the meter reader first alerted them to his suspicions. He was a suspcious character at at that and is down on record as having duct taped his own wife, according to her deposition..........so as Jose said, "Follow the duct tape". I can see why the jury was puzzled.

Even if she cut her long locks, bleached them blonde, went into a sort of witness protection program in Cheyenne Wyoming, she'd still be hunted down by the media. (Obviously she is not a witness; I just used that as an example...new identity, new location, etc.)

Also, why did not either the prosectution or the defense mention the traffic violation she had while driving Annie Downing/Dowling's car....with her friend seated beside her. She presented a fake i.d. to the police officer with the name of Zenaida Gonzalez on it. Later , she appeared in court and paid the fine, under the name of Zenaida Gonzalez. Early on, I thought that perhaps she had "multiple personalities" which could come from early child issues of incest or molestation. In other words, she compartmentalized her feelings and emotions by taking on different identities.......maybe the "real" Casey didn't even remember what she did .....

Why was a professor named Zenaida Gonzales' college office robbed right around the time this all came about.........her computer was stolen.

There are a lot of Zenaida Gonzales out there.

I guess we will never know for sure.