Casey Anthony Bombshell!

H

HaoZi

Guest
I'm used to following these cases by not just what the media prints, but also by what they don't print. Things that are kept from the media for case reasons, etc. What I see is that Casey's story simply doesn't add up no matter which way you cut it.
 

Marguerite

Active Member
I am very grateful we are not getting coverage of this. All I want to emphasise here though, is that it is so very important to let the courts work this out and not allow public opinion to influence the process.

In Australia, we learned this very important lesson with the Azaria Chamberlain case. That's the one where the baby went missing at Uluru, in the centre of Australia, while the family were camping there. The mother, Lindy, reported seeing a dingo coming out of the tent where the children slept and said she thought it had something in its mouth. She immediately checked the tent and found 9 week old Azaria missing. The two older boys were unhurt.

At first she got sympathy, but it didn't take long for public opinion to start saying things that should never have been said. The first inquest clearly said that it was a dingo. Then under pressure from the media and the police in that state, a second inquest was ordered. The police investigation then turned the searchlight on the family. Lindy was eventually convicted of murder, but the combination of prosecution case coupled with the defence just did not make sense. No motive was ever put forward that seemed to fit. They could have had a really good defence if they had pleaded that Lindy had postnatal psychosis and didn't know what she was doing. it was what a lot of people were thinking, but by this time there were so many rumours about this case that much of what was being printed was utter rubbish.

Lindy is now free from jail and exonerated. Her story was at last proven true when, after some years, the baby's matinee jacket was found in a place where it could not have been, according to the prosecution case. It took a lot more years to get Lindy a pardon, a shameful amount of time really.

This case changed a lot about how our police here and our media handle high interest cases. What it has taught us is to never judge hastily based on public opinion.

I was one of those who thought Lindy was guilty, based on the information available to us thanks to the media. However, I did not believe she was deserving of jail, there just did not seem to be enough of a case for her deliberately, maliciously, killing a baby. An accident, maybe, or a psychotic break. But if so - why did they not say so? Because, of course, she was innocent.

The forensic evidence seemed compelling, but it later was shown to be done so badly, the tests gave false positives for blood. And the pathologist threw out the evidence, did not even take photos! These days, better records are kept.

When the forensic evidence was shown to be faulty, it was the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle and the entire case was turned on its head.

After all this - we have learned to go very carefully in any discussion we might have, even if the case seems so open and shut. There is always more that we are not told. More, that is not even presented in court.

This Anthony woman may be guilty, or she may be right when she says she was herself molested by her father. I agree from the sound of what you report, the stories are not adding up - why not mention it earlier, and why leave your child with someone you know to be abusive? But we can't convict on this apparent inconsistency. We do need to let the courts work it out, and not influence the process. And I am here to tell you - public discussion like this CAN and DOES influence the process, and can reduce the probability of true justice.

Sorry to be a party popper - but I do think it is important to go carefully.

Marg
 

1905

Well-Known Member
But what about those internet searches? And why would a jury believe someone NOW, after so, so many lies were told? Marg, in that case the woman told the truth from the begining. The heart sticker wasn't put on her mouth by a seasoned police officer. Ther are too many lies told so we'll never know the truth. She'll get convicted because a jury won't believe her. They'll think like we think.
 

dashcat

Member
Marg, I remember the LIndy Chamberlin case. Very tragic, but also very different. Lindy may have cracked under pressure, but she did not swing wildly from one story to the next and blame everyone on the planet. She may have begun to doubt what she saw, but she stayed pretty consistent.

And 3xD, I think there is proof - at the very least - that there was a huge coverup regarding Caylee's death and the disposal of her body. It's not much of a leap from there to suspect murder. You do raise some good points, though and,a s parents of difficult children, we know wha it is like to feel judged, to have people doubt us as parents and to see your kids suffer and struggle. Casey clearly has mental health issues. Whether or not she is capable of murdering her own child is something that I pray comes to light as this trial goes on.

As it's been stated before, having your child missing for a month and not bother reporting it is incomprehensible. He subsequent actions and many layers of lies aren't helping her credibility one bit.

The fact is that Caylee did not commit suicide by either drowning or placing duct tape over her airways. She did not stuff her own lifeless body in a plastic bag and bury it. Somebody did this to her. If Casey is not guilty of the a ctual murder she is, at the very least, guilty abuse of a corpse and interfering with a police investigation. The very people Caylee trusted to care for her abandoned her .... even if you buy the perposterous drowning story.

Dash
 

rejectedmom

New Member
Here is what I think happened. I think Casey wanted to go out and party. I think she clorophormed the kid and put tape over her mouth to keep her quiet should she wake up and cry. If there was a pool and a drownding I think little Kaylee wandered out while still groggy and fell in. I think Casey found her when she got home and paniced. I think she kept Kaylee in the trunk of her car till she couldn't anymore and then put her in the field hoping someone would find her quickly. (Remember the case of the woman who left a man hanging through her windshield of her car which she parked in the garage for days whileh he was dying? All because she panicked and couldn't thing straight?" I think Casey is still in panic mod and going along with her attorney who is making up all kinds of stories to invoke "a reasonable doubt". I also think all of this stinks. There is no justice for Kaylee and there never will be she is dead and doesn't deserve to be. As far as the Grandparents go? I know what it is like to grow up with an alcholic father who is eratic and abusive. That said none of the 5 of us kids grew up to be pathological liers or even bad parents. We all tried to be better parents to our children than my father was to us. So in my opinion no matter what the parents did or didn't do to Casey, she is the one responsible for her actions not them. -RM
 

DDD

Well-Known Member
Sorry if my post sounded like I am convinced Casey is innocent. That was not the intention. My intention was to point out that the trail by media with help from law enforcement began in 2008. I conceed that she is an immature, habitual liar with difficult child tendencies. It in Court she is proven to be the one responsible for the death of her daughter I'm not going to argue the decision.

So far, however, I have not heard or read any statements from eye witnesses that she was a poor Mom. Even relatives say that she and her daughter consistently appeared to have a loving caring relationship. There has been no evidence that she is a boozer, has ever been a drug user nor is there evidence that she has been promiscous by today's standards. The Prosecution puts out the theory that she wanted her daughter dead so she could hook up with a guy with-o the responsibility of a child. So far I have heard that each of her boyfriends knew Casey and her daughter as a loving combo. I haven't heard yet that (Like Susan ?? Smith who drowned her little boys) she was in love with a guy who didn't want a kid. So..to me, that sounds like a sexist motivation for murder that was agreed upon by the Prosecution because they couldn't find a specific motive. They have to have a motivation for their case.

So the point of my post was not to say she is innocent, or that the grandparents are guilty. The point was that I don't think the public should rush to judgement because of the press coverage. I am also not saying that she was a sexual abuse victim. Who knows? But that wouldn't justify murder anyway. Marg's example is a good one. That Mom was guilty as sin in the press. The Judicial process determined she wasn't.

I can't remember which CD family member said that she hated to see rancor among the family. I apologize if that is how my post came accross. For years and years we have all shared stories of abnormal behaviors from our difficult child's. Obviously she is a difficult child. on the other hand, that does not make a murderer. All Warrior Moms know that's true. If she is proven to be..then she is. Two weeks of testimony should give the jurors sufficient information to make that judgement. That's all. DDD
 

DammitJanet

Well-Known Member
Well I think she was a bit promiscuous. I dont quite agree with moms dragging little kids around from boyfriend to boyfriend and letting them sleep over at their houses when the moms really arent in committed relationships with the guys. Heck most of the guys she took Caylee over to sleep with werent even long term friends and Caylee slept in the same bed with them. I really get the creeps over that. Trust me, we didnt let Keyana go over anywhere when Lindsay was dating other guys until she was serious with her now husband.

Even though I was an idiot back as a young mom when I divorced my first husband, Billy never met any guy I dated until Tony came into our lives.
 

AnnieO

Shooting from the Hip
I have to agree with Witz. If my child vanishes and I don't know where they are, I freak.

This has led to some interesting things happening. Age 11, Onyxx hid behind & under a sofa and fell asleep. She'd been acting out, so I went to check on her. No Onyxx. husband went to check. No Onyxx. Called cops. They searched the house. No Onyxx. Finally I sat on the sofa - flopped down - bawling my eyes out. She'd been missing maybe 2 hours. Well, our sofa's springs were bad - and when I sat, I bumped her feet and woke her. Kid came flying out, scared me, husband, the dog, and 2 wide-eyed police officers half to death. She never did that again...

My point being... Anyone who actually gives a rat's rear end about their children ain't gonna go party, etc. for a month.

Casey lied. Multiple times. Did she commit murder? Don't know. But I do know that "loving bonds" can be faked and motivated by fear.
 

dashcat

Member
DDD,
Your post did not come across that way to me. We should all feel free to express our opinons here. Nothing wrong a good debate!
Dash
 

klmno

Active Member
I could be wrong but I thought I remembered them having videos of her out partying and being quite promiscuous even before Caylee went missing. Even so, that doesn't make her a murderer, true.

BUT at the very least, she has to be guilty of help covering up the death of her child, lying about it for months to law enforcement, impeding an investigation, covering up if not helping or soleley disposing of a body illegally, and I can't see her doing this to cover an accidental death or a murder of her daughter committed by someone else without her conspiring to have it done. The reason I am concluding this is that 1) she never went looking for the child herself, claiming her child disappeared and had no idea what happened to her- so it appears to me that they are conceding that Casey knew all along her child was dead, 2) their defense isn't "not guilty and I have no idea how she died or who hid the body" so they must be conceding that she knew all that, 3) I seriously doubt Casey would throw herself under the bus by spending the past few years trying to cover up an ill act from her father that supposedly caused her child's death or that the father pushed her into hiding the body like that if the child died accidentally and he knew about it all along.

What does it say if this is the best defense they can come up with? Is the point to make sure that if she goes to jail, her father goes, too? If the verdict comes back guilty of murder, then I can see that they would pull out all the difficult child issues, any prior abuse, etc, to argue for less than the death penalty or life sentence, but I can't see that it makes much of a defense when put with everything else. Just MHO.
 

klmno

Active Member
Also, a little Occupational Therapist (OT) maybe but I wanted to elaborate on my apology this morning. I was in a hurry to get to work but I woke up feeling horrible about how my earlier post came out so critical of another member on the board. It was never my intent to make that member, or any member here, feel like I thought they weren't a good parent, much less try to portray them as a bad one. I have no idea why I chose such poor wording yesterday and honestly couldn't see how bad it sounded until I woke up this morning. Now that I've had a few minutes, I have deleted those portions from that thread and sent a private apology via PM. I just wanted to aoplogize "in public" too, and let those of you who read it know that I really do NOT feel that way about this board member and I truly am sorry. I wasn't mad about the different perspective so I can't use that as a poor excuse either. There were some good points made and we all should feel open about sharing our perspectives.
 

Lothlorien

Active Member
I'm glad everyone's back on track.

I think Rejected mom has the right idea. I believe that is probably what happened, but I don't know about the drowning. I think she just died from the chloroform and duct tape, which Casey did so she could go party.

Casey has lied so much that nothing out of her mouth is believable.
 

DammitJanet

Well-Known Member
Ya know, everyone keeps asking how a "good mother" could kill their child like that. I think there is an answer for that. I do think that Casey could have loved having this cute little doll baby girl in a show puppy sort of way but she also wanted her own fun sort of life. I see that in the lives I deal with in my own life. Not that I think either of Keyana's parents could kill her but I do think they tend to think of her more as a show puppy than a real child. I think Caylee was Casey's show puppy and the Grands probably did the real caretaking.
 

klmno

Active Member
Now maybe this is just biased based on my own experience, but I do believe there's truth in her brother trying to molest her. The FBI or whomever didn't do a paternity test on him so early on in the case without some reasonable cause to believe something was weird there. But I still can't see how that would justify finding her not guilty if she killed her child, or helped cover it up to this extent. Casey isn't a teenager with no way to survive- she's an adult and had been living an adult lifestyle for years. I just can't see the connection. Even if what she said about her father is true- how does that get her a "not guilty"? When your her age, what are you scared of that is greater than your kid's life?

Did they ever establish who the father of Caley is/was? He ought to be feeling pretty raunchy right now for not protecting his daughter. If what Casey is saying about her family is true, they'd take custody away in this state for letting a child be around known child rapists.
 

DammitJanet

Well-Known Member
Casey would never tell who the father was or she never knew. I think the only reason they ever tested the brother was because she wouldnt tell who the father was so they figured she was protecting a family member and by testing the brother it would tell if it was either the brother or the father by dna.

I dont know why the father wont come forward...maybe they dont know who they are though one would think...gee, I slept with that girl 3 years ago and that kid could be mine! I dont know though if I was a guy though and if a baby of mine was found murdered if I would really want to know that it was mine...maybe not...maybe I would really want to chose to believe it couldnt have been mine so I didnt have to face that kind of trauma. She could have had a one night stand ya know?

Its all so difficult.
 
H

HaoZi

Guest
Here's what I think the defense is thinking:

They won't have Casey plea out and accept guilt for a life sentence, because the prosecution is basing a lot on circumstantial evidence. However, they also know that the jurors are going to look at everything and say she's guilty of something here, even if they can't put it all on her beyond a reasonable doubt.

What the prosecution does is toss a ton of charges out there, from premeditated murder to manslaughter, with illegal disposal of a corpse, interference in an investigation, etc etc etc. What this does is gives the jury options - they don't have to say "No, we can't prove she planned it, and because of that we have to say she's innocent." So they go to next charge down, in Florida that's second degree murder, which covers a lot of territory, but the gist would be guilty of murder without being able to prove prior planning. Next down is third degree murder/manslaughter, which is basically "Oops, I didn't intend to kill them, but that was the outcome."

First degree comes with the option of the death penalty in Florida. Not all jurors are willing to give that, or even willing to take that chance. These are the ones that may believe she's guilty of it, but won't convict her because of the death penalty. They'll go for option two, second degree, which is a life sentence. This is based on what they feel is proven in court. If they don't feel that she intended to kill Kaylee but that she did do it, they have option three. All of these options come with the additional charges available to tack on extra time to the sentence, concurrent or consecutive, which can still end up being pretty close to life sentence if found guilty on the extra charges and they're tacked on consecutively.

Complicated, eh?
 

Star*

call 911........call 911
Here are some of my random thoughts. Just because this whole story it just one big snow ball and the defense attorney is loving that.

When they say the cadavar dogs found something in the backyard - what are they talking about? What exactly did the dogs find?

How are they SO sure the pool comes into play? Who is bringing that into the story now?

If the babys dad was her uncle they have plenty of DNA left to disprove that so that's a load.
 

witzend

Well-Known Member
First degree comes with the option of the death penalty in Florida. Not all jurors are willing to give that, or even willing to take that chance.

I disagree. Before they were sworn for the jury, they testified that they could vote for the death penalty if after they found her guilty they found that the crime met the statutes for the death penalty. I know a lady who wanted to be on a jury so badly that she pulled that kind of thing on a rape victim. She said she could find the man guilty if the prosecution proved it's case, then she hung the jury in a not guilty because even though the prosecution DID make it's case she personally felt a man was justified in raping his estranged wife at gunpoint because "that's a wife's duty." The judge found out (because she was such a big mouth) called a mistrial two weeks later and said he'd retry it if the prosecution wanted to. The wife couldn't go through it again and the "husband" walked away from it. The lady I worked with was lucky she didn't go to jail.

There'll be none of this nonsense jury nullification in this case. They said that they could do it, and if the prosecution makes the case and they don't they will be outed by someone trying to sell a book or a tabloid story. This I promise you. If they find her guilty and there's no death penalty, they'll have a legal reason for that.
 
H

HaoZi

Guest
The main point is that they may "feel" she's guilty enough for the death penalty, but don't consider it proven enough that she did it in the circumstances required for the death penalty. That's where the contingency charges come into play, so it's not an all or nothing trial.
 
Top