Casey - Innocent until proven guilty?

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 05-27-2011, 10:42 AM
Freeda's Avatar
Freeda Freeda is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Village of Hillsboro, The Villages
Posts: 609
Thanks: 4
Thanked 25 Times in 13 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Freeda Louthan
Lexington KY 1951-1972, Louisville KY 1972-2007
The Villages FL since 2007 - Home for good, at last

Measure your wealth not by the things that you have, but by the things you have for which you wouldn't take money.
The world needs dreamers; the world needs 'do'-ers. But most of all, the world needs dreamers who are do-ers.
  #32  
Old 05-27-2011, 01:46 PM
graciegirl's Avatar
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,419
Thanks: 4,200
Thanked 4,699 Times in 1,611 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeda View Post
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.
__________________
It is better to laugh than to cry.
  #33  
Old 05-27-2011, 02:27 PM
LELANDJANE LELANDJANE is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Opelika, Alabama
Posts: 256
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Freeda,

You could be right, but I doubt it!

You are certainly the person the defense would love to have on the jury.
  #34  
Old 05-28-2011, 01:11 PM
jebartle's Avatar
jebartle jebartle is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: LaZamora Village
Posts: 4,235
Thanks: 115
Thanked 562 Times in 205 Posts
Default Cindy Anthony

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!
  #35  
Old 05-28-2011, 02:30 PM
PennBF PennBF is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,005
Thanks: 0
Thanked 570 Times in 163 Posts
Angry Watch George

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.
  #36  
Old 05-28-2011, 03:12 PM
rubicon rubicon is offline
Email Reported As Spam
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,697
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default

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.
  #37  
Old 05-28-2011, 03:37 PM
graciegirl's Avatar
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 39,419
Thanks: 4,200
Thanked 4,699 Times in 1,611 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

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.
__________________
It is better to laugh than to cry.

Last edited by graciegirl; 05-29-2011 at 05:38 AM.
  #38  
Old 05-28-2011, 10:59 PM
CMANN CMANN is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 601
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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
  #39  
Old 05-29-2011, 01:42 AM
Freeda's Avatar
Freeda Freeda is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Village of Hillsboro, The Villages
Posts: 609
Thanks: 4
Thanked 25 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jebartle View Post
...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.
__________________
Freeda Louthan
Lexington KY 1951-1972, Louisville KY 1972-2007
The Villages FL since 2007 - Home for good, at last

Measure your wealth not by the things that you have, but by the things you have for which you wouldn't take money.
The world needs dreamers; the world needs 'do'-ers. But most of all, the world needs dreamers who are do-ers.
  #40  
Old 05-29-2011, 07:55 AM
robertj1954's Avatar
robertj1954 robertj1954 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Villages
Posts: 197
Thanks: 1
Thanked 10 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeda View Post
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 Fiance’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.
__________________
Making every day even better
  #41  
Old 05-29-2011, 09:12 AM
duffysmom's Avatar
duffysmom duffysmom is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,063
Thanks: 1
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeda View Post
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.
  #42  
Old 05-29-2011, 09:37 AM
JimJoe's Avatar
JimJoe JimJoe is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Posts: 856
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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
  #43  
Old 05-29-2011, 10:00 AM
Barefoot's Avatar
Barefoot Barefoot is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Winters in TV, Summers in Canada.
Posts: 17,681
Thanks: 1,685
Thanked 238 Times in 180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaGirl View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaGirl View Post
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.
__________________
Barefoot At Last
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Saving one dog will not change the world, but surely for that one dog, the world will change forever.
  #44  
Old 05-29-2011, 10:07 AM
islandgal's Avatar
islandgal islandgal is offline
Eternal Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mallory Square
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Casey's Eyes

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!
__________________
Richmond,VA - Martinsville, VA - Hilton Head Island, SC - Mallory Square

Rescuing one cat may not change the world, BUT for that one cat, the whole world will change.
  #45  
Old 05-29-2011, 10:23 AM
LittleDog's Avatar
LittleDog LittleDog is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Village of Poinciana
Posts: 1,056
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by islandgal View Post
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
__________________
Neptune, NJ 1963-2005
The Villages 2005-forever

"Don't curse the darkness when you can light a candle"
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.