Back to CMA issues....

Discussion in 'The Watercooler' started by klmno, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    I apologize for bringing this topic up again. I have been doing pretty well about detaching from this (LOL) but I have some questions now.

    For one, who the HE!! is going to pay for her plane ticket, new clothes, food, housing, etc? I hear plastic surgery has been offered and I assume that's a donation.

    And while I think it's a brilliant legal strategy for Zanny's attny (can't spell her real name, no offense meant), to request a video taped deposition be given to Casey on Friday before she's released (it's the video tape that is brilliant, in my humble opinion), WTH are they planning on doing after Casey flees? How can they re-coup anything or even get Casey in jail if they win the case or someone proves she lied in depositions?

    And while I would NEVER support harrassment or anything of a juror, these people must have been clueless about circumstancial (sp) cases and I can't help but wonder how many of them were even old enough to be parents. Something is just not adding up right about that jury. One commentator said she's not bashing the jury and is really trying to listen to what is said by the few who have spoken, but she can't find any rational logic in what they're saying- something like "if you ask a person if it's raining and they respond that the flowers are pretty" (not exactly her analogy), and I can't agree more. They seem to be side-stepping logical answers, in my humble opinion. Is this a result of youthful jurors who might not have an adequate background and education about our court proceedings? For instance, one juror said that when the prosecution rested, they were all shocked because they assumed that the prosecution was just getting to the big evidence. Commentators are taking this to mean that as supporting the determination that there wasn't enough evidence. Personally, I took it as evidence that the jury had no clue how the process works if they didn't get that the prosecution presents a case, the defense presents the defense, then the prosecution can present a rebuttal. The rebuttal isn't half way thru the trial or half way thru the prosecution's presentation. If they didn't understand that, how could they understand a circumstancial case and what is required to prove guilt?
  2. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    K...I understand exactly what you mean. I think that the public as a whole has become extremely prone to what I call the "TV CSI Effect" by which I mean people think what we see on TV is what can happen in real law enforcement and trials. It is so not real. Most police departments dont have access to crime labs like on CSI and trials arent over in 60 minutes. You dont find dna or fingerprints every single time. Bones and Booth dont come running to the rescue with all this fancy equipment to find some tiny little bone fragment that they can scan and send through fancy computers to spit out analysis which will say that someone was walking through a park in a certain subdivision near road X at 7pm on Tuesday after they ate lasagna. LOL.

    Also, the jurors did seem to not get the idea about circumstantial...with the raining analogy, is it are inside and last you knew it was sunny but you go outside later and the pavement is wet and there are puddles and you heard thunder. I think it is fair to assume that it rained. The jurors seemed to think she was guilty...I cant understand why they didnt find her guilty of something. No one has been able to explain that to me yet.
  3. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    And who's going to pay for Casey's escape? Does anyone know?

    Back to that, DJ, the way I look at it is that one juror said they "considered" (well, they never went back and reviewed it) each individual evidence like the duct tape, etc, and just looking at that, they decided it could mean anything. Yeah, if I just look at a piece of old duct tape it could mean anything to me too. However, if I look at that in Caylee's situation, along with the next thing- say that Caylee was 2yo and in the care of her mother, then the video of Casey with her boyfriend in a store that very night, etc......yeah, by themselves that means nothing, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots. So, were they inable to connect the dots or did they think if they did that themselves, it meant the prosecution hadn't proven it? Or, hoenstly, I still can't help but think that maybe they just didn't want to put the time and effort into real review of evidence and deliberating to hammer it out. What is it exactly that they didn't get? I just can't believe that they really got all that and came to this conclusion when they say their intial votes were split between guilt and innocence yet no evidence was reviewed and they were out the next day. That just looks like the people who thought she was guilty didn't want to bother trying and just gave in to the others to get out of there.
  4. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Me too K...especially when the one juror had a plane to catch.
  5. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    So far, all these videos from jail that occurred after Casey was arrested just seem to be a "typical" family of a difficult child trying to tread that fine line of keeping her pacified so she'll keep talking to them and maybe reveal some knowledge of what happened to Caylee. Was the family hiding something? Yes, they were hiding their fears and gut instincts that Casey knows more than she's telling. They think they can get the info from her. Were they covering something up? Yes, they were covering up all their hx with Casey that would lead anyone to assume she's guilty- because they don't want her thrown away on an assumption. This whole family was revolving around Casey in order to try to find Caylee, but it appears that it's been revolving around Casey for a very long time, even before Caylee was born. There was no sexual abuse, IMVHO.
  6. mom_to_3

    mom_to_3 Active Member

    RE: Your last comment klmno, what was so "typical" of this family. That "dance" is exactly what is so typical of parents of difficult child's. I would venture to say that every parent here has danced that dance and probably didn't even know it at the time or even after the fact. Some of us (the lucky ones) realize what we've done and begin to learn detachment.

    RE: the case. I do believe that Casey is guilty. I was unable to follow the trial day to day or even week to week. I am curious to know though, if anyone heard the judges instructions? I am not saying this was so in this case, but many times, the way a judge instructs the jurors before deliberations can predict the outcome. Any information or thoughts on this?
  7. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    I put the word 'typical' in quotes because I know it isn't typical of mainstream but it is typical of parents of difficult child's to do this- that isn't a criticism- that is an understanding that we have to at times, if we are parents of difficult children. I'm agreeing on that point. Maybe I should have worded it differently but I think most who frequent this often will realize what I meant.
  8. mom_to_3

    mom_to_3 Active Member

    I do frequent this site frequently. For many years actually. And..... this was not a criticizm at all in any way! I was just pointing out that they weren't the only parents to have done this. Before I knew better, I did this too. I was just commenting on your post. No offense meant.
  9. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    She gets away with murder, gets to move, gets a new face, and someone else is paying for it. If I think about it I'll stay angry for a long time.
  10. Shari

    Shari IsItFridayYet?

    Ya, but you really think she's going to use that face to conceal her identity and move on in life? I don't. She likes the limelight too much.
  11. donna723

    donna723 Well-Known Member

    Shari, I agree. She's been absolutely wallowing in all the attention she's gotten, even if it's all been negative attention. She loves it! And with her 'party girl' personality and all the focus that's been on her in the last three years, I can't see her being content to keep a low profile and fade in to the background! I just can't imagine her getting a new face and a job at Walmart in an undisclosed location! And that may be her undoing in the end.
  12. Shari

    Shari IsItFridayYet?

  13. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    'specially in Texas. If memory serves, the most recent case that nailed a murder conviction without a body was in Texas. Wonder what she'll try there.

    ETA: Just got this in my email on Caylee's Law petition:

  14. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    You know I have been trying to distance myself from this case too but I can't. Every day something else comes up that just makes me angry all over. I agree with everything you said klmno. I said all along that unless those jurors had difficult child's at home they had no idea what family dynamics come into play and so for them they think the family is dysfunctional, ergo Casey's behavior is understandable, instead of that Casey is dysfuntional and the family is just trying to survive.

    I keep hearing how intelligent Casey is and that she does not have any psychological impairment and I shake my head. That must mean my difficult child, and all of our difficult child's, are fine and their behavior is nothing strange and we must be the crazy ones who cause the dysfunction. How can you have a person who lies about EVERYTHING and shows no normal emotions of fear, loss, guilt and who acts out the way she did after her daughter died, who took no responsibility for her daughter, how does someone do that and be declared to have no psychological impairment??? I'm questioning whether these psychologists have any clue about people. How do they know she is telling them the truth and not conning them? My difficult child conned so many psychologists that I would have to call them after the session to let them know all the lies she told. And several of them told me point blank they had no idea she was lying. Isn't there something wrong with that? Unless she tells these psychologists the truth and tells them she is lying to all the rest of us, how can they believe anything she says?

    I too have tried to understand the jurors. I listen to what they say and each one says something different and none of them can explain to me how they looked at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. They just dismiss the fact that it was a circumstantial case and they didn't need to have the manner of death, they just ignore that. You know some of our difficult child's have received tougher sentences for far less crimes.

    Things keep popping into my head about this and none of it makes any sense to me.

  15. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    And I'm sick of hearing about how everyone grieves differently. So that means no matter what anyone does after a death, even if they killed the person, it's normal behavior and doesn't point to any deviant behavior or sociopathic behavior. I'm beginning to think that everything everyone does is normal behavior and therefore nothing is out of the norm. Except I guess that the millions and millions of people that are upset by this are acting abnormally and we have the problem.

    If any of our difficult child's would have told the lies that she did, would we ever believe anything they said?

  16. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Not a one of the jurors have said a word about reasonable doubt. They have said well I had a doubt. We had a few doubts. They say we didnt understand a few things. They say they didnt believe George. They say all this stuff but none of them have said Reasonable Doubt. Thats because they didnt have any.

    Also..the defense used all of our texts, facebooking and twitters to form their case. They went online every day and saw what folks were saying and then formed what they wanted to say. When they saw people say that they thought George was iffy about the affair, they pounced on him. If they saw folks were kind to Cindy, they got very gentle with her. They echoed the testaments of the people in the real world. It worked. They knew not to put Casey on the stand because of the twitters and all.

    Now we know we have to give juries little prefab bite sized pieces of information to fill in the blanks of trials. Maybe they need a multiple choice form to help them along. Or give them ritalin. Or just tweet it to them. They might get it then.

    I also am just in complete shock how any psychologist could spend more than ten minutes with Casey and not find some sort of psychological diagnosis for her. I can spot a few and I am at least 10 hours from her! I saw an interview with Dr Drew and one of the psychologists and he was about to have a stroke that she could possibly not have something considering what she has done. Just immature my left arm!

    And how do you become a stealth juror? I thought they chose jurors at random.
  17. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    About that: I heard one psychiatric on tv saying he'd evaluation'd her extensively (HA) and Casey had given him permission to discuss the results. He said that he couldn't see any sign of axis 1 or axis 2 (Dr. Drew nearly fell out of his chair and while he didn't yell at the guy, his voice did raise as he exclaimed "How can you say that" LOL) The psychiatric responded that he really thought Casey didn't "get it" but it was because she really is just that immature.

    I was sitting there thinking "immature"??? If she can't get anything about this situation at her age, we are talking about a lot more serious problem thatn immaturity. Try something like autistic (no sign of in Casey), psychotic, sociopath, severe learning disability......These psychs chosen have to be the type who do only evaluations for the defense. No therapist, psychiatric, or psychiatrist I've taken my son to would come to this conclusion, I don't think. I realize that at one point the court ordered 3 different ones and I think the "system" chose them, not Baez, BUT they were only evaluation'ing to see if she was competent to stand trial. They weren't looking to see if she had a diagnosis. Most MH profs these days are trying to slap a diagnosis on anyone any chance they get, even prematurely. Not that all would do that, many would take there time and try to get the diagnosis right, but most aren't saying "no diagnosis" very easily.
  18. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    most psychiatrists or tdocs who see a young mother on trial for murder who know that she has lied repeatedly to the police and who has admitted that "supposedly" the baby died in a pool and then the baby turns up in a swamp in a bag however long later and with all that behavior in between.... then with all that other junk added in...immature? I dont think so. I can see them saying PTSD if they believed the rape stuff. I can believe they would say she had some form of psychosis going where she had trouble with reality thinking...but immature? Nope.
  19. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Nancy I hope you come back and see this. I wonder how your husband feels about this consultant who used the social media stuff to feed it to the defense about the Anthony family? In ways I wouldnt feel so betrayed if all they did was listen to the stuff about how people felt about Casey and her attire or facial expressions or the crying or the infamous tissues...but to actually go onto all the various social networking forums and emails and twitter type things and cherry pick the posts or comments that were Pro Casey and defamed her parents...especially George and gave ideas for a defense.
  20. 1905

    1905 Well-Known Member

    This is her having fun! This attention is THE BEST for her, in her mind she's a star! Seriously, I'm sure she really thinks she's a celebrity. It's just sick. I have no doubt she'll get what's coming to her. In the meanwhile she'll be rich and famous. I'm sure she has some weird fan club...they give her money. I just can't seem to wrap my brain around this outcome. I can't even let myself think about this, it's so upsetting. Don't you think if this case hadn't received all this attention she'd have ben convicted? I do.