Verdict in Anthony Trial

[San Francisco Cy]

I don't see how anyone could not find her guilty of manslaughter. Well actually I can because too often juries don't understand the term beyond a reasonable doubt because they leave the reasonable out of the equation. Of course there was doubt in this case, but reasonable doubt? i don't think so.

He child was missing for a month and she didn't report it, lied to her mom and friends about where her daughter was. Lied to police when the questioned her several times. - Found guilty of 4 cases of providing false information. All of these lies were on tape and played to the jury

Trunk smelled like a dead body. Multiple sources say the trunk smelled like a dead body, including Casey's mother and father.
Chloroform found in the trunk. - Proven by forensic testimony. Traces were found in the trunk and the skull
Chloroform searches on the computer, which the mom couldn't have made because she was at work at the time. - Proven by computer testimony
Duct tape around the girl's mouth. - Proven by the mandible still being attached to the skull. The only way the mandible would still be attached after nearly 6 months
She was contained in a laundry bag that was part of a matching set that belonged to Casey. The only person that had access to all of the items found at the scene of the dead body was Casey
They caught her lying numerous times on camera at the jail. - fact. Several videos, including her telling her dad how great of a father and grandfather he has been. She later accused him of molesting her as a child

No evidence that the girl drowned. No evidence or testimony that Casey drowned it was only the assertion of the defense attorney.

It is harder to prove premeditation, but with the computer searches I think the jury could have found premeditation but at the least it should have been manslaughter.

Another problem today is that people think that circumstantial evidence is a bad thing, it is not, it is what most cases are decided on because rarely is there direct evidence like shows such as CSI portray or confessions that happen all the time in those shows as well. People watch these shows and expect to the prosecution to have direct evidence but that is not how it usually works.

Is this factual? I would like a list of confirmed factual evidence. Not going to even try looking at CNN or Fox for facts about this case. Way too many biased sources on this.

I watched pretty much the entire trial, literally. I watched Court TV footage nearly every day. I saw about 90% of the testimony. How any reasonable person could sit through this entire trial and think that she's anything but a compulsive liar is beyond me. Does that make her guilty of murder? Not necessarily. But, here's what my decision is based on:

• When police first became involved, she finally admits that Caylee has been missing for 31 days
• She claims that she left Caylee with her nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez on June 16. It is later determined that there is no such person
• She claims that she worked at Universal Studios. When police take her to Universal to show where her office is, she stops them halfway there (at Universal) and says, "ok, I don't actually work here".
• In opening statements, the defense said she was molested by her father and that they will prove it. They never even touched on the subject and came up with any proof
• In opening statements, the defense said that Caylee drowned and that they would prove it. They never even really touched on it or gave any proof that was the case
• In opening statements, the defense said some other guy found the body, hid it for awhile and planted it back at the scene, so he could make more money from the reward. It was unfounded, and the skull was believed to have been there the full 4 months plus by experts.
• Duct tape was found on the skull

Ok. The last point to me is that most important. Why is there duct tape on the skull? The defense claimed that George Anthony found Caylee drowned in the pool. Why would this man, a former cop, find a drowning baby, cover her mouth with duct tape, and throw her in a swamp? It's not reasonable to believe that anybody else was involved in Caylee's death. And if it's not murder, it's at least manslaughter...in my opinion. How could one person on that jury not see that?

 

[Cy4Patriots]

And it proved that the mother put it on there? Sure, it could be shown that it's likely that she did it, but that isn't the same as actually proving that she did it.

I'm probably not the best person to be arguing this with since I had to google to figure out who Casey Anthony was this afternoon.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Often its the exact opposite. Jurors often assume that a prosecutor would never bring anyone to trial that isnt 100%, undeniably guilty, even if the evidence is extremely circumstantial. Even where reasonable doubt exists, they often vote guilty based on emotion and what they think probably happened rather than making the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed commit the crime.

Good job by the jury in this case in going with their heads and not emotion and realizing there wasnt enough evidence here. Also, keep in mind that it wasnt a hung jury situation. Everyone had to vote not guilty. If all the jurors who witnessed every minute of testimony and evidence expressed reasonable doubt, i think its safe to say that there was enough doubt to be considered reasonable.

She's guilty unless you can make an argument to change my mind based on these pieces of evidence:

-Waited 30 days to tell anyone her child was missing
-Chloroform searches on her computer
-Matching bag
-Smell from her car

I'm sorry, the first on is enough for me to have absolutely not a shred of doubt in this thing. The others just reaffirm.

I also think there is a problem with the system in live trials. A jury doesn't always decide based on the merits of the case. They may decide based on how much they like one lawyer or the other or the ability of the lawyer. I know that's how it works and the way of the world but that doesn't mean it's accurate. In this case it wasn't and you would have to come up with something pretty good to sway that opinion. This ***** murdered a child and got away with it. If you want to ramble on about the justification of "reasonable doubt" that's fine but there shouldn't be any doubt in a logical person's mind.

 

[cloneswereall]

It's one of those things that happens when all you read is the local newspaper, and don't have cable TV.

 

[cloneswereall]

I watched pretty much the entire trial, literally. I watched Court TV footage nearly every day. I saw about 90% of the testimony. How any reasonable person could sit through this entire trial and think that she's anything but a compulsive liar is beyond me. Does that make her guilty of murder? Not necessarily. But, here's what my decision is based on:

• When police first became involved, she finally admits that Caylee has been missing for 31 days
• She claims that she left Caylee with her nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez on June 16. It is later determined that there is no such person
• She claims that she worked at Universal Studios. When police take her to Universal to show where her office is, she stops them halfway there (at Universal) and says, "ok, I don't actually work here".
• In opening statements, the defense said she was molested by her father and that they will prove it. They never even touched on the subject and came up with any proof
• In opening statements, the defense said that Caylee drowned and that they would prove it. They never even really touched on it or gave any proof that was the case
• In opening statements, the defense said some other guy found the body, hid it for awhile and planted it back at the scene, so he could make more money from the reward. It was unfounded, and the skull was believed to have been there the full 4 months plus by experts.
• Duct tape was found on the skull

Ok. The last point to me is that most important. Why is there duct tape on the skull? The defense claimed that George Anthony found Caylee drowned in the pool. Why would this man, a former cop, find a drowning baby, cover her mouth with duct tape, and throw her in a swamp? It's not reasonable to believe that anybody else was involved in Caylee's death. And if it's not murder, it's at least manslaughter...in my opinion. How could one person on that jury not see that?

She's guilty unless you can make an argument to change my mind based on these pieces of evidence:

-Waited 30 days to tell anyone her child was missing
-Chloroform searches on her computer
-Matching bag
-Smell from her car

I'm sorry, the first on is enough for me to have absolutely not a shred of doubt in this thing. The others just reaffirm.

I also think there is a problem with the system in live trials. A jury doesn't always decide based on the merits of the case. They may decide based on how much they like one lawyer or the other or the ability of the lawyer. I know that's how it works and the way of the world but that doesn't mean it's accurate. In this case it wasn't and you would have to come up with something pretty good to sway that opinion. This ***** murdered a child and got away with it. If you want to ramble on about the justification of "reasonable doubt" that's fine but there shouldn't be any doubt in a logical person's mind.

The only thing I'm seeing here is that she's guilty of not reporting her kid missing, lied to the cops, and that she looked for chloroform on the computer. In all honesty, you guys are making leaps that weren't proven to have happen, and all the defense has to do is create scenarios in which the defendant isn't guilty and are plausible occurrences. That's kind of the point of a defense attorney. To get the jury to think that there's a chance someone else could have done it. Sounds like they did their job, and the prosecuting attorneys didn't do so well in disproving those arguments.

 

[FarminCy]

I watched pretty much the entire trial, literally. I watched Court TV footage nearly every day. I saw about 90% of the testimony. How any reasonable person could sit through this entire trial and think that she's anything but a compulsive liar is beyond me. Does that make her guilty of murder? Not necessarily. But, here's what my decision is based on:

• When police first became involved, she finally admits that Caylee has been missing for 31 days
• She claims that she left Caylee with her nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez on June 16. It is later determined that there is no such person
• She claims that she worked at Universal Studios. When police take her to Universal to show where her office is, she stops them halfway there (at Universal) and says, "ok, I don't actually work here".
• In opening statements, the defense said she was molested by her father and that they will prove it. They never even touched on the subject and came up with any proof
• In opening statements, the defense said that Caylee drowned and that they would prove it. They never even really touched on it or gave any proof that was the case
• In opening statements, the defense said some other guy found the body, hid it for awhile and planted it back at the scene, so he could make more money from the reward. It was unfounded, and the skull was believed to have been there the full 4 months plus by experts.
• Duct tape was found on the skull

Ok. The last point to me is that most important. Why is there duct tape on the skull? The defense claimed that George Anthony found Caylee drowned in the pool. Why would this man, a former cop, find a drowning baby, cover her mouth with duct tape, and throw her in a swamp? It's not reasonable to believe that anybody else was involved in Caylee's death. And if it's not murder, it's at least manslaughter...in my opinion. How could one person on that jury not see that?

This is my exact thoughts as well. She even drug her own family through this and allowed her defense to make accusations about her dad and her dad's involvement in the death that were never proven or touched on as you already stated. I cannot even comprehend how she was found not guilty on the lesser murder charges. I will give that it was tough to prove 1st degree but to come back unanimous on the other murder charges and not guilty on endangering her child is just crazy.

I have to believe though that she will still somehow get what she deserves. I'm not sure she will do jail time on the other charges but since she will be on probation she will not be allowed to leave the state and hide in some other country. I am guessing that she will be attacked whether it be in the jail system or in public at some point in time. Which I am 100% OK with.

 

[San Francisco Cy]

And it proved that the mother put it on there? Sure, it could be shown that it's likely that she did it, but that isn't the same as actually proving that she did it.

I'm probably not the best person to be arguing this with since I had to google to figure out who Casey Anthony was this afternoon.

The defense readily admitted that Casey was there when the baby died. They say that her dad blamed her for it and then decided to make it look like a murder. They also said that a meter reader confiscated the body and also put duct tape on the mouth. Her dad was devastated about the loss of his granddaughter and actually had written a suicide note and had ever intention of ending it all when law enforcement impeded. It doesn't add up.

What the evidence shows me is that whether she meant to kill her or not, she did use chloroform on Caylee and duct taped her mouth and nose shut. She kept her in the trunk until she could dispose of the body. She borrowed a shovel from the neighbor (though she didn't end up actually using it. She brought the shovel back to the neighbor 45 minutes to an hour later, after I believe she decided instead to leave the body in the swamp which was close by.

She then went on to lie about where she was and who she was hanging out with. She created somewhere in the realm of 10 people that she and Caylee were hanging out that didn't exist. In the meantime, she was out clubbing with her new boyfriend, who also believed the Caylee was either at the nanny's (who again, doesn't exist) or at her parents. She used her mom's credit cards and stole checks from her friends in the meantime to shop at Target and other places.

She lied so much and the defense continued her lies by blaming everybody (particularly her on father, whom Casey said on video was a great father and grandfather, and was the spearhead of the search team for Caylee's body). I just can't see how a reasonable/intelligent person could watch all the evidence and determine she's not AT LEAST guilty of manslaughter. It's truly mind numbing and scary...

 

[FarminCy]

She's guilty unless you can make an argument to change my mind based on these pieces of evidence:

-Waited 30 days to tell anyone her child was missing
-Chloroform searches on her computer
-Matching bag
-Smell from her car

I'm sorry, the first on is enough for me to have absolutely not a shred of doubt in this thing. The others just reaffirm.

I also think there is a problem with the system in live trials. A jury doesn't always decide based on the merits of the case. They may decide based on how much they like one lawyer or the other or the ability of the lawyer. I know that's how it works and the way of the world but that doesn't mean it's accurate. In this case it wasn't and you would have to come up with something pretty good to sway that opinion. This ***** murdered a child and got away with it. If you want to ramble on about the justification of "reasonable doubt" that's fine but there shouldn't be any doubt in a logical person's mind.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[Tre4ISU]

The only thing I'm seeing here is that she's guilty of not reporting her kid missing, lied to the cops, and that she looked for chloroform on the computer. In all honesty, you guys are making leaps that weren't proven to have happen, and all the defense has to do is create scenarios in which the defendant isn't guilty and are plausible occurrences. That's kind of the point of a defense attorney. To get the jury to think that there's a chance someone else could have done it. Sounds like they did their job, and the prosecuting attorneys didn't do so well in disproving those arguments.

Ok, so then where does it end. Do we have to have a video of people actually committing the act. Wait, with today's technology you could easily make a fake video couldn't you. So then what do we call solid evidence? If you daughter is missing, please me a reason as to why you would wait 30 days to report it. She also didn't just look for chloroform. There was chloroform found in the car and on the body. Also, who did they suggest did it? I didn't watch the trial, just followed a long in reports. Did they point the finger at anyone? I bet they didn't because any evidence you bring up in this case comes back to her. This, IMO is what's wrong with the system. You can take any case and cause doubt. Is it reasonable? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. IMO, in this instance no doubt that i have read is what I would call reasonable. I understand the innocent until proven guilty and that the prosecutor needs to prove his case in an effective manner but at some point there has to be some common sense. At least OJ had some things in his trial that could cause some sort of reasonable doubt. There was nothing here.

 

[CycloneErik]

It's one of those things that happens when all you read is the local newspaper, and don't have cable TV.

I have cable TV, and I haven't followed this case, either. There are plenty of other things to follow.

 

[San Francisco Cy]

The only thing I'm seeing here is that she's guilty of not reporting her kid missing, lied to the cops, and that she looked for chloroform on the computer. In all honesty, you guys are making leaps that weren't proven to have happen, and all the defense has to do is create scenarios in which the defendant isn't guilty and are plausible occurrences. That's kind of the point of a defense attorney. To get the jury to think that there's a chance someone else could have done it. Sounds like they did their job, and the prosecuting attorneys didn't do so well in disproving those arguments.

There have never been any other suspects. Lying to police who are trying to help her find her "missing child" is just the tip of the iceberg. Searches for chloroform on the pc are not damning, searches on "how to make chloroform" are. Traces of chloroform and the smell of human decomposition in the trunk are.

I honestly don't know that she killed Caylee on purpose. I believe that she would sometimes knock her kid out with chloroform or xanax, or something similar so that she would sleep and she could go out and party. How else can you explain that this "nanny" that she supposedly had for two years was watching the baby as much as she supposedly was. She did not exist. The fact that duct tape was on that baby, and she was the last person to ever see Caylee alive is enough for me...

 

[San Francisco Cy]

Ok, so then where does it end. Do we have to have a video of people actually committing the act. Wait, with today's technology you could easily make a fake video couldn't you. So then what do we call solid evidence? If you daughter is missing, please me a reason as to why you would wait 30 days to report it. She also didn't just look for chloroform. There was chloroform found in the car and on the body. Also, who did they suggest did it? I didn't watch the trial, just followed a long in reports. Did they point the finger at anyone? I bet they didn't because any evidence you bring up in this case comes back to her. This, IMO is what's wrong with the system. You can take any case and cause doubt. Is it reasonable? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. IMO, in this instance no doubt that i have read is what I would call reasonable. I understand the innocent until proven guilty and that the prosecutor needs to prove his case in an effective manner but at some point there has to be some common sense. At least OJ had some things in his trial that could cause some sort of reasonable doubt. There was nothing here.

And experts were shocked that any traces of chloroform were found on the skull, 6 months after she died. She is clearly the only one that could have left the body there, based on all of the items found on or near the body. The prosecution and forensic experts were put at a major disadvantage by not being able to test the body until 6 months after decomposition began. And Casey was the only person that knew where the body was and told nobody...

 

[CloneIce]

Bingo. It's not the governments job to make jurors think someone is guilty...it's their job to PROVE they are guilty. Absolutely no way they proved anything. We should all take comfort in that (that our government has to prove guilt, not just imply it) even though most likely this woman goes free when maybe she shouldn't have.

I know I don't want to live in a country where a man/woman can be put to death over what is percieved to be odd behavior.

I agree with you, though sadly there have been many, many people convicted of murder with only incredibly weak circumstantial evidence, or even less, against them. So many people have been later found to be inoccent by DNA testing, when you go back and look at the trial, its downright scary how little evidence some jurors need to convict someone of murder. Always someone who can't afford a decent lawyer, and in alot of cases you have prosecutors with a "convict at all costs" mentality, who are only concerned with getting a conviction, even if it isn't the right guy.

 

[CloneIce]

The entire jury had to agree on this verdict... it's not like it was a hung jury where one person felt differently than the others. If every one of those jurors felt that she wasn't guilty after hearing the evidence (or lack thereof) presented by the prosecution, I'm not going to sit here and say they're wrong.

They don't even have to feel she isn't guilty, they just have to feel she wasn't proved guilty beyond a resonable doubt. I was on a jury once for a trial on 5 counts. Well, we all agreed he was guilty of 4 counts. On the 5th count, I and most of the jury believed he probably was guilty of the crime, but we also came to a consensus that it was not proven beyond a resonable doubt, therefore we could not find him guilty, even if we ourselves believed he was.

 

[rbrook]

Is this factual? I would like a list of confirmed factual evidence. Not going to even try looking at CNN or Fox for facts about this case. Way too many biased sources on this.

It has already happened twice right here in Norwalk, Iowa. Just google Teri Lass. She was found "not guilty" also.

 

[cycopath25]

I would put money down that not a single one of those jurors would let Casey Anthony babysit their child.

 

[bluestarcyclone]

She's guilty unless you can make an argument to change my mind based on these pieces of evidence:

-Waited 30 days to tell anyone her child was missing
-Chloroform searches on her computer
-Matching bag
-Smell from her car

My reading of the testimony has been pretty limited but..

1.Being a ****** parent does not mean she murdered the kid. It couldve been an accident and she panicked. It couldve been her dad and she felt compelled to try to cover for him for whatever reason. She may be very disturbed to not do anything when her child disappeared, but that does not prove her guilt in a murder.
2. Couldve been anyone with access to that computer, and i believe there was testimony from someone (her mom?) claiming those searches.
3. Does not point directly to casey necessarily.
4. An article i read yesterday said that there was also testimony from those saying there was no smell.

Do signs point to her? Absolutely. But justice isnt done by proclaiming guilt over those who just have signs pointing to them, even a large number. Our system is set up intentionally with the standard of reasonable doubt, to err on the side of not guilty in order to minimize the number of innocent defendants that are convicted. And that is a good thing. We have seen too many times when a prosecutor or police department focuses in on one single suspect, ignores other avenues, and then railroads a defendant, only to find out they didnt\couldnt've done it through new evidence or testimony.

 

[Gonzo]

All it takes is one dumbsh*t on a jury. Florida is chock-full of those.

 

[chuckd4735]

I would put money down that not a single one of those jurors would let Casey Anthony babysit their child.

I dont think there is anyone on here who is saying that just because she was acquitted, that she defiantly did not do it. The problem is, Oranage County was charged with proving, without a reasonable doubt, that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. They needed to be prepared for rebuttal in their testimony, and they needed to be prepared to rebut the defense's testimony, all in an effort to prove, beyond doubt, what obviously happened. They had ample time to prepare for this trail, and they were going against a defense attorney, who IMO, was less than stellar.

Instead, they let the jury go into deliberation with doubt present, and that is where they failed. The fact that 12 people came to a unanimous decision that doubt existed means that Orange County did a poor job, not that the jury is full of idiots.

 

[bluestarcyclone]

I would put money down that not a single one of those jurors would let Casey Anthony babysit their child.

Which doesnt mean anything as far as what their vote as jurors should be.

They all could be 90% sure she did it, but have 10% doubt. They are supposed to vote not guilty when they have reasonable doubt.