Casey Anthony bombshell, innocent after all?

Discussion in 'The Watercooler' started by Mattsmom277, Jul 19, 2011.

  1. Mattsmom277

    Mattsmom277 Active Member

    http://www.wesh.com/r/28600305/detail.html

    Well, there goes any reason at all to have not considered she might be telling the truth finally after a life of lies, when she told her defense attorney her "version" of events. Prosecutors had nothing but clorophorm searches as a basis to think that her lies about jobs etc and the hiding of Caylee missing was due to panic after an accident etc. The 1 single search was very innocent and defensible. The FALSE report of the 84 searches including the supposed looking on how to make it, how to use it on people etc? Without THAT false report, what pointed to homicide aside from being messed up enough to not call police after an accident and stash the body wrapped up in the woods (chargable in itself but not homicide and proof there is now no evidence in absence of those searches, to suggest any murder. A liar? yup, Needing psychiatric help? yup. Possibly messed up due to previous abuse? possible. Possible that a chronic liar could tell the truth when caught and fess up but also have believability about this as a accident? Yup. Even duct tape in absence of this other false info, only proves she wrapped this little girl up and put her in the woods. That is dispicable enough. She'd probably be in prison for a long time just for that. It's reprehensible. But suddenly all the hate has to be erased somehow and the other facts viewed without that massive taint that started the entire process of building this to fit a murder.

    What is up with the prosecutor waiting and only deciding to tell the JURY the truth until July 5, but they returned a verdict so he did NOT??? What if it had been a death penalty verdict of guilt????????? On errors? Untruths with the only motive proving piece of a possible? I'm appalled.

    I knew something was under seal and it was HUGE, but never thought THIS.

    Sorry all, I believe her defense was truthful. Period. Cut and dry. That prosecutor? Now we know why he quit, the judge quit, and Baez was suddenly talking loudly that just WAIT lynch mod angry passionate people, because You don't know what you don't KNOW .... yet.

    Wow. This is going to be hard for people to accept. What part of the justice system REALLY failed? Apparently not the part it was majorly assumed.

    I'm stunned. Anyone else have a dropped jaw?
     
  2. Hound dog

    Hound dog Nana's are Beautiful

    Hmm.

    Honestly? Doesn't waver my opinion that she's guilty as sin. One doesn't require chloroform to subdue a 2 yr old, and once duct tape is over the mouth she's not going to make noise enough in the trunk of a car for anyone to hear.

    I might buy the "it was an accident" defence if there had been no duct tape. If she'd simply wrapped the child up and in fear hid her away in the woods. That, like you said, is bad enough.......especially to go out an party hardy afterward. But to duct tape an already deceased child makes no sense whatsoever.

    I don't buy the it was an accident defense either. What a bunch of bull hockey. Children wander/fall/attempt to swim in pools and drown all of the time. Parents aren't charge with murder because their toddler accidentally drowns. There was no reason whatsoever for her to hide the body had it been an accident. I don't care how messed up she was mentally. And as for the theory that the grandparents went along and helped with the scheme.....uh, no. Not buying that one either. Why would you do all that, then grandma change her mind and report her missing so you can all end up in jail?

    While what happened with the report ect was wrong. As far as Casey goes I don't see where it changes anything. It certainly doesn't change her status one way or the other. Well, maybe because prosecutor's were hoping this was at least once piece of solid evidence, but people have been convicted of murder without anything except circumstantial evidence all the time. And in my opinion they certainly had enough of that.
     
  3. 1905

    1905 Well-Known Member

    She's totally guilty in my opinion.
     
  4. Mattsmom277

    Mattsmom277 Active Member

    So if she hadn't duct taped the bag you'd view the other circumstantial stuff as explained by her defense, but by duct taping the bag those same circumstantial evidences equals inability but being anything but murder?

    Edited to add: there was NO proof the duct tape wasn't from the bag and was ever over her mouth. Just sayin
     
  5. donna723

    donna723 Well-Known Member

    It wouldn't change my mind either! Not at all! The fact that it was searched for even once says enough,especially since traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of the car. And if you printed it out, one search would be enough.

    I firmly believe that she killed that child. Nothing else makes sense. And like someone said, I think it was one of the commentators ... many times people try to make a murder look like an accident but why would anyone possibly try to make an accident look like murder?
     
  6. Hound dog

    Hound dog Nana's are Beautiful

    Not really no. Her going out and partying it up instead of reporting her 2 yr old child missing sealed her guilt for me. Just meant someone doesn't go through all that trouble to cover up an accidental death.
    Knowing for a fact your child just drowned, you hid her body instead of contacting proper authorities ect........AND went out and partied after laughing and having a wonderful time......uh, no. You'll never convince me she's innocent. Soulless, yes. Innocent, no way in he!!.

    easy child nearly drowned near the same age. She got knocked into a large hotel pool while I was occupied with infant Travis. Nearly drowned, and I had horrific nightmares for a year.
     
  7. flutterby

    flutterby Fly away!

    I thought that because the mandible was still attached to the skull they were able to conclude that the duct tape was applied to Caylee.

    And, yeah, the other stuff? Guilty.
     
  8. Mattsmom277

    Mattsmom277 Active Member

    I never saw proof of the madible thing? In fact maybe I misheard but I thought it was circumstantial and even the people testifying for prosecutors on this had to admit that the tape on the mouth was a theory but they admitted it is just as possible it was never on her face. Maybe that fact will come up again in the next day or two in the news and clarify it. There's so much misinformation but I'm certain I read it as well in discovery documents online. Suddenly I started reading all kinds of the paper evidence (its all public online) because so many stories online were different. I'm almost certain that is what was the outcome of the provability of the duct tape being on the mouth.
     
  9. Mattsmom277

    Mattsmom277 Active Member

    I also read the statements earlier after reading this news report. Wanted to know what was going on in that 31 days and so I read the statements by all those she was around in that time. She partied. She also woke up nights in cold sweat, shaking and crying. She at parties several times broke down and yo yo'ed from the so called happy go lucky party girl, to a woman upset and she even told several of these people her upset involved family things and she didn't want to talk about it. They also said that her behavior that month as the "party girl" was different than before that 31 days. And that every night she DID go out before that tragic day, her mom watched Caylee. Well if she went "out - out". Often she was gone overnight WITH Caylee, staying at friends, not partying, just doing what we all do, bring our kids along to a friends or whtever.

    We know she is a liar. She was 19, had a kid and lied about who was the dad, she took money from her family and a friend, she pretended to have a good job and a nanny, a life that made her sound "together" instead of a 19 year old high school non graduate fired from 3 jobs who mooched off her parents and stole for spending money. Sounds like tons of difficult child's. Mine included before he got it together. The change from THAT to monster (theory anyhow she is a monster) comes with those 31 days. Nobody can picture (its tough!!) a person who wasn't a monster, hiding a drowning and dumping their child and pretending for 31 days that it didn't happen, then lying rather than come clean. That sounds like a difficult child who is so utterly stupid and idiotic that why NOT come clean dummy? What the heck were you THINKING? The shaking and nightmares don't point to a sociopath without a concience. I also know many a difficult child who in the worst predicaments go off and pretend reality is not going on and promiscuity, partying, escape mechanisms, denial, mental health problems (her lying history proves SOMETHING wasn't okay, was it due to abuse as defense implied? Hmm. All hinges that it is IMPOSSIBLE because Dad was this great grampa and the public rallied to him. He lied as much and MORE in his life before that day than Casey ever did! With huge effects on his life, family, wife, children. Yet HE is believed to FINALLY tell the truth on something and he is credible. but his daughter lying before that day (to less degree than he did) means she can NEVER finally come clean. She doesn't get credibility. Dad does. ???? I don't follow the logic. Without that search, which misled a investigation, we might have heard for 3 years about the girl who was so screwed up that when her daughter drowned, she had her in the woods in a bag wrapped in tape and hid her disappearance and then went on to pretend she was kidnapped, unable to tell the truth about an accident because she is a difficult child and stupid and insane. Even the much scrutinized faces she made on camera, times she became angry or tearful in the court room, take on a different view that could indeed support that she was upset because she finally had told the truth and nobody would listen. It can change the entire public view based on a different approach that would have been had by the prosecution, who probably would have went after her for not calling 911 and lying to police and doing that with a body. She'd be in jail for THAT for a long time. But it wouldn't make her a murderer. This really DID rip motive apart. She never before this day this all happened was declared unloving to her daughter. Liar thief etc. But never unloving. She must have acted then for 3 years raising her daughter with love (even if she needed her parents finances and home because she was immature and lazy and spoiled and woulnd't work for those things herself), when underneath lay the inability of concience in a sociopath? That never did fit no matter WHAT was believed about evidence.

    This, if looked at with fresh eyes, would have been a totally different view of her. Very unflattering anyhow of her and people would be disgusted and want her jailed, but a murderer? Wouldn't have been a case. Even WITH this false evidence, the jury couldn't convict.
     
  10. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    How do you know grandpa lied so much? because a liar says he did? Or because a liars defense attorney says he did? I sure wouldnt take their word for it.

    The computer forensics may have been faulty on one of those reports but they did two of them. Both of them werent faulty. I did find the first man that testified about the computer to not have all his facts in a row and wondered if he was attempting to dumb it down for the jury or what but even Billy and I were sitting there going huh? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense to do it that way. Now when the woman got on the stand saying how she had completely searched the entire hard drive for certain words, she sounded much more believable to me and it made a whole lot more sense. I can actually read one of those reports so I know what it says. It wasnt just one time, there were numerable hits on sites. the computer didnt make them up.

    I still feel with every fiber of my being that she is guilty of this murder. Anyone who wasnt would have been screaming from the hills about an accident from the moment it happened. She wouldnt have risked 3 years in jail and a possible death sentence. Her father didnt have a danged thing to do with this but I looked at Tony the day Jose said it and told him that was going to be the undoing of this case. George was going to be thrown under the bus and there was never going to be anyway he could get his life back because you cannot unring that bell. Once someone says those words, you can never get that accusation out of your life again even if you have never done a darned thing. She gets away with murder by saying daddy messed with me. That is completely unfair to all the men in jail who have had far worse abuse happen to them and they didnt get a pass.
     
  11. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    Let's remember- the prosecution never said chloroform killed her- they said duct tape over her nose and mouth suffocated her. The jury saw photos that we didn't that supposedly showed the duct tape and skull at the time it was found with hair matted on the duct tape and fabric from the duct tape somewhere on or around the skull.

    I don't know if other evidence was monkeyed with- that would make a difference. But I'm not sure about this chloroform issue- one search but how many results were looked at and would it be long enough to print out how to make it? Was the search for how to make it and was it done while Cindy was at work? It only takes one bullet to kill someone.

    Also, If I'm not mistaken, if issue had been made of this witness's mistake during the trial or whatever happened, I think it would have led to a mistrial. At this point, I wish that would have happened. I don't know that a mistrial can be claimed by anyone now though since she was found not guilty.
     
  12. SomewhereOutThere

    SomewhereOutThere Well-Known Member

    I don't care about the searches. She's lucky I wasn't on the jury. At the very least, I would have stuck to my guns on manslaughater. In my heart, I know she did it (I listened to the entire trial) and I think she'll end up in jail again.

    There is simply nobody else in my opinion with a credible reason to kill her, nobody else acting happy as a lark knowing Caylee was dead, and I don't buy the "it was an accident" nonsense. I think Baez has a good imagination.

    From anyone with legal knowledge...I have a question. Can a defense attorney knowingly lie about motive or slander a person to get his client off? I'm thinking of the allegations of abuse made against George. If Casey didn't tell that to Baez, is he allowed to make it up? If so, juries hear a lot of tall tales...and I wonder how many verdicts are wrong due to an attornies own ability to lie well.
     
  13. Hound dog

    Hound dog Nana's are Beautiful

    Casey was found not guilty. They can't charge her again for the same crime, no matter what evidence comes to light now.

    Like Janet, I knew for certain she'd be found not guilty the moment she threw her dad under the bus. All that was was razzle dazzle to muck up the facts of the case and throw doubt out there, when in truth, it had nothing to do with this case at all whether he is guilty or innocent of her accusations. I find it difficult to believe someone about such things when they've already been proven to be a habitual liar, but even if it had been truthful, like I said, no relevance to the case at all. It was a distraction, pure and simple.

    Motive? "I'm tired of the responsibility." or "I want to go out and party with my friends".

    Actually, oddly enough I can give Casey the benefit of doubt on whether or not the death was deliberate (pre-meditated) or not. I've seen enough off the wall behavior from young parents who leave their young children at home while they go do as they please to know that the child could've been duct taped simply to keep her quiet and "out of trouble" while Mommy went and did her thing.......only she suffocated instead, leaving Casey with a body to dispose of and no way to call police / medics because a duct taped child would scream her guilt. I can give her that benefit of doubt as far as premeditation, but that's about it. And that is because, like I said, I've known parents who have done similar outrageous things to keep their child quiet while they go do as they please. In fact, I know of two very young children who died in this area due to such behavior. Those parents are sitting in prison for murder.

    If the jury had understood the true meaning of reasonable doubt, she would not have walked. It's not just random doubt.....or I point my finger at this person and make up a wild story, therefore now there is doubt type thing.

    Does not matter if once or twice she "got upset" at one of those parties either. What screams her guilt is her actions and her lack of action. She hid the body. She didn't report her daughter missing or dead. She reported no accidental anything. She went out partying with full knowledge of what had happened to her child. She lied repeatedly. People who are innocent don't feel compelled to hide bodies. Simple.
     
  14. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    If she had been found guilty it is very unlikely that her appeal would have been granted on that false report. Most legal scholars agree that it it did not substantially alter the outcome of the case. I'm just saying.

    MWM no attorneys cannot lie to provide a motive to get their client off. By slander if you mean can an attorney throw someone under the bus to provide reasonable doubt, yes they can as you saw in this case. The attorney is permitted to come up with a theory of the case based on his/her knowledge of what happened. An attorney cannot even put someone on the stand if they know they are going to lie. At one point near the end of the case Judge Perry went to great lengths to say he was certain neither Baez or Ashton put Cindy on the stand knowing she would lie. That would be grounds for disbarment.

    Nancy
     
  15. SomewhereOutThere

    SomewhereOutThere Well-Known Member

    Nancy, thank you. Wow.

    This is part of my theory of how Casey got away with it, even though in my opinion there was plenty of evidence she killed her, at least accidentally. My biggest reason is that she is a pretty young lady. Had she been a man (in fact they blamed George and Lee...the men), a minority woman or a fat,ugly, toothless white women...there is no doubt in my mind that she would have been convicted whether Baez made up the stories or not.

    This makes me doubt the jury system. I wonder how many times jurors just aren't bright enough to understand forensics science or to comprehend the meaning of reasonable doubt. I actually think a panel of maybe four judges would do a better job. At least they have high education levels and most jurors don't. I was shocked when I heard the reasons the jurors gave for finding Casey not guilty. The foreman, who was only thirty, pretty much said, "Nah, it doesn't bother me that she partied the day she allegedly found out Caylee had drowned. I mean, that's what people our age do. We like to party." And he was the foreman.

    I read that the IT guy thought she was guilty, but finally went along with the others because they didn't know how Caylee died. Don't remember where I saw that.
     
  16. donna723

    donna723 Well-Known Member

    "Does not matter if once or twice she "got upset" at one of those parties either."

    Lisa, I agree with you 100%! And we all saw by her courtroom behavior that she can turn those tears on and off like a faucet!
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  17. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    I think Judge Perry really thought Baez knew Cindy was going to lie before hand. I dont think Ashton knew she was going to change her story mid-stream. How anyone was going to prove Baez knew it unless Cindy admitted that was going to be difficult to say the least. Seeing how she lies as well as her daughter, I doubt charging her with perjury was going to shake her.

    I still think no one understood why parents wouldnt call the cops the day they found the car because they have never been parents of kids like ours. They dont understand that hoping against hope with every fiber of your being that you are wrong. That ability to want to close our eyes to what we probably know has happened but we want to wait until we know for sure and then we will do the right thing. After all, he didnt know if it was Casey or Caylee or both.
     
  18. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    All I know is that I'm convinced Casey is solely responsible for that child's death. An "accident" to me means something like drowning in a pool when a child wanders off in the wee hour of the morning. Neglecting or abusing a child and the child dieing as a result is not an "accident" in my book. It just maybe wasn't intentional. If the question is boiled down to whether or not Casey did something she shouldn't have that inadvertantly caused the child's death (child abuse or manslaughter or 3rd degree murder) or pre-meditated Caylee's murder than followed thru, or somewhere in between, then any reasonable jury should have deliberated to find a consensus.

    Over and over I hear 2 things about this jury that keep standing out. 1) they mostly seem young and inexperienced in real life with kids, and 2) once the 1st degree and death penalty were thrown on the table, anything less than proving pre-meditation seemed to automatically lead them to a not guilty verdict instead of viewing and considering that Casey might not have pre-meditated it but she's still guilty of causing this child's death- and that is illegal, too.
     
  19. Star*

    Star* call 911........call 911

    If nothing else maybe this will hold ALL expert witnesses', evidence, chains of evidence, and peoples exhibits to a higher standard than before? Trials may take a bit longer, but perhaps guilt will be proven.

    Still does NOTHING for Caylee. Anyone know where lawmakers are with Caylee's law at this point?
     
  20. donna723

    donna723 Well-Known Member

    Janet, I agree that Baez knew beforehand that Cindy was going to lie about making the computer searches. He called her to the stand to get up there and talk about it! How did he not know? Even Baez couldn't possibly believe that story! One of two things happened - either Cindy called Baez and volunteered to take the blame for making the searches that showed premeditation or ... Baez called Cindy to ask if she would do it and she agreed, thinking it might save her daughter from death row. Just throw it out there and see if it sticks, and it didn't. Her testimony wasn't believable at all, obviously very far fetched. And both of them should have known that, by checking her computer records at work, it was very easy to prove that she had been at work that day, not at home! I don't believe for one little minute that Baez didn't know that it was a lie! He is such a sleaze!
     
Loading...