Manhattan Buckeye;822361 wrote:"This isn't normal behavior, but Casey Anthony is not normal and clearly has mental issues. "

I agree, but why lie to the cops? What did they have to gain by lying about an accidental death that could result (well, did result) in a disastrous court situation?

dwccrew;822358 wrote: I have always maintained that Casey found her daughter dead and panicked, tried to dispose of the body and went on with her life.

dwccrew;822366 wrote:Strictly my opinion, I think once the lies spiraled out of control, they just stuck with it. I believe her to be an undiagnosed pathological liar. Dr. Drew even stated that with how elaborate her lies are, you have to assume she believes them. There is tons of evidence of this even before Caylee died. She lied about who the father was (told her former fiancee he was the father, then made up 2 other names), she made up fake friends, etc.

Ultimately her lies POSSIBLY set her free.

enigmaax;822367 wrote:I think she played a role in the death, though not intentionally. Maybe chloroform was used, to make her go to sleep. Maybe she put the duct tape over her mouth as some stupid punishment or just because she was annoyed. Hell, maybe she put her in the trunk because she didn't want some dude to know she had a kid. And it killed her. And would that have been manslaughter or murder or something else? Maybe she drowned because no one was watching and knowing there'd be some kind of trouble, Casey (and her Dad) decided to try and make it look like a kidnapping/murder....she just executed that plan really poorly. I could draw all of these conclusions based on there being a body and a crazy, slutty mom. And none of the prosecution's evidence either proves or disproves any of it any more than they did their own theory.

Manhattan Buckeye;822162 wrote:Interesting comments, most of my legal friends think the prosecution did an ok job (note, I've barely followed the case) and were a bit surprised, but not shocked at the verdict.

Heretic;822400 wrote:Man, I also barely followed the case and all I feel educated enough to comment on is that I'd do her.

Sykotyk;822544 wrote: If the daughter argues that her father really did it (or that it was an accident) she still has to NOTIFY SOMEONE of the accident. There's a REASON you're required to notify the authorities of ANY death of ANYONE. To immediately verify there was no foul play involved. Attempting to cover it up immediately implies guilt. Why else would you cover it up?

It's the blago indictment. It doesn't matter whether he sold the senate seat or not, the simple act of soliciting the seat is enough to make him guilty. Insomuch as it's not whether she really cold-blooded murdered her daughter, it's the fact she went to apparent great lengths to cover up the death. Is it reasonable to think that innocent people cover up their children's death?

Fab1b;822548 wrote:I was pretty sure she would be found guilty of the neglect charges (that shocked me) as I believe neglect from her not being honest about her daughter's whereabouts led to more harm to the girl, possibly we don't know that becuase we don't know for sure when the child actually died.

Sykotyk;822544 wrote:It's the blago indictment. It doesn't matter whether he sold the senate seat or not, the simple act of soliciting the seat is enough to make him guilty. Insomuch as it's not whether she really cold-blooded murdered her daughter, it's the fact she went to apparent great lengths to cover up the death. Is it reasonable to think that innocent people cover up their children's death?

tk421;822722 wrote:I don't know if anyone has posted this already, if so, sorry. Someone started a petition for Caylee's Law, which would make it a felony offense for parents/guardians who do not notify LE of a missing child in a timely manner. It's already got almost 140K signatures in about a day, I think. What do you all think?

http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law

ccrunner609;822692 wrote:really? They held onto that lie while their daughter sat in jail for 3 years? 3 YEARS? Went to trial for murder and could of easily spent her whole life in prison or been given the death penalty just to hold onto a few lies? Hell no. They held onto those lies cause someone killed her and they know it.

dwccrew;822730 wrote:this family is obviously ****ed up, who knows why they do anything they do.

tk421;822726 wrote:Don't know, but I also saw a news report about it that mentioned it probably isn't constitutional for the feds to pass such a law. It'd probably have to be done individually by the states if they wanted to. I think they mentioned something like within an hour of knowing or 24 hours for a missing child. I'm not sure.

enigmaax;822267 wrote:There were also several people who were in contact with the car who did not smell a dead body (or anything unusual). Also, George Anthony testimony changed from his original statement about the smell - which he said was trash originally.
The chloroform searches really have nothing to do with anything - traces of chloroform were found in the car trunk, not the remains. Whether the body was ever in the trunk was not proven.
Casey Anthony could not be placed at the scene where the body was found and the DNA on the tape wasn't hers.
The phrase about it being an "accident that snowballed" came from a woman who testified that George Anthony said that to her a few weeks before the body was found. She said they were romantic, he denied it. She provided a text from after the body was found in which he stated, "I need you in my life." (Casey isn't the only one who appeared to have told lies.)

Mulva;822787 wrote:Don't state laws also need to be constitutional?

It calls for the creation of a new federal statute called “Caylee’s Law” – named after Anthony’s deceased daughter – that would make it a felony for parents not to report the death of a child to law enforcement within an hour of discovering the incident, or within 24 hours in the case of child disappearance.

But some question the constitutionality of such a proposed law. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard, points out that criminal laws usually fall within the realm of state jurisdictions.

When Congress does enact them, however, it does so under the Constitution’s commerce clause, which applies to cases that significantly impact interstate commerce. Tribe posits that the proposed “Caylee’s Law” would fail to meet that test and would not hold up at the federal level.

“This is an understandable reaction to…a verdict that people feel unsatisfied with, but violating the constitution would hardly solve the problem,” Tribe told the Law Blog. “There is no basis I can see for any congressional power to deal in this broad way with all cases of injury – and perhaps fatal injury – to children.”

sherm03;822276 wrote: The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to give the jury enough to make them think that it is reasonably possible for that scenario to happen

gut;822835 wrote:Again....REASONABLE doubt. If she had nothing to do with any of this, there's no reason to lie to police, much less wait 30 days to report the girl missing. If you think she did something, even accidentally, that's manslaughter. Why is the car abandoned in the first place? These are things the defense really did absolutely nothing to offer an explanation, while the prosecution's is quite sound...but reasonable people have reasonable doubt?