gut;823813 wrote: You have a body with duct tape over it, discarded in the woods.

Are you really that fucking stupid? You keep saying the same thing over and over again without paying any attention to any detail other than what you decided before the trial even started. There was DNA on the tape - at the scene - that did NOT match Casey Anthony. Do you get that? When your little bit of physical evidence doesn't lead to the person you want, you can't just toss it aside and try something else.

gut;823813 wrote:The reasonable assumption is murder

I assume the same thing. You can't convict someone on an assumption, especially when you don't have anything actually tying that person to the evidence.

gut;823813 wrote: There is no one else with access or motive

There are, in fact, at least three other people known to have access and the motive is a stretch.

gut;823813 wrote: Either you accept that she drowned, or the circumstantial evidence points to murder with no remotely reasonable alternative.

Well, you don't have to accept that drowning is the alternative. I've already told you that the tape could've been put on her mouth as a punishment or out of annoyance...and then it stayed there too long. That isn't murder.

gut;823813 wrote: her actions and statements are not consistent with someone frantic/panicking and trying to cover things up. If you were going to cover things up, you report her missing immediately.

Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to think that a person whose proven nature is to make up elaborate lies would see that something happened, know it is going to look bad for her, so quickly concoct a plan to make it appear as though her daughter was kidnapped and murdered. Then you are going to ask, but how could she go 31 days...blah blah blah...and the simple answer is she had no need to play it out so long as no one was asking questions. If she acted guilty of something, there would be suspicion. So she went about her life. Then her mom pinned her down unexpectedly and she no longer had the chance to make her story work. It is sick that all of this would take precedence over the little girl, but it aligns much more with what we know - that she is a liar.

gut;823820 wrote:And what does he say about a mother driving her car into the lake with her children inside?

That she was mentally ill. There was no documented history or attempt to claim that Casey was mentally ill. Completely different personalities/people. Did you miss the part about the testimony, even by prosecution witnesses that Casey was never anything but a loving mother? Did you miss the part about the child being well-behaved? Did you miss the part where the child stayed with the grandparents frequently anyway? There's nothing about that testimony that can make someone make this jump to, suddenly the fact that child was around was so much of a burden that she either methodically or in a state of rage, killed her on purpose.....so she could party.

Y-Town Steelhound;823674 wrote:You don't have to prove motive....this isn't Law and Order

See all of the above. If you don't have physical evidence, your motive becomes the next most important thing. You don't necessarily have to "prove" either, but you better be rock-solid with at least one. The state wasn't convincing on either.

sherm03;823837 wrote:OK, let's ignore the drowning possibility for now.

We have a dead body with duct tape over the mouth dumped in the woods. The duct tape was in the house, so any person that lived there had access to it. In fact, Casey's dad used the tape at work according to testimony. It was found on the gas cans that he reported missing to police. Why is it unreasonable to think that HE may have been the one to place the tape over the kid's mouth, causing her death? We have no DNA on the tape to prove that Casey was the one who actually placed the tape on her mouth. Isn't it possible that Casey's father could have done it? And isn't the possibility that someone else close to the victim had access to the "murder weapon" (and I use that term loosely since the prosecution never proved that it was actually the cause of death) reasonable enough doubt to acquit?

Okay, let's assume her father killed her. Let's assume he taped her mouth. Let's assume he dumped the body. Let's assume Casey is innocent of murder.

Is it reasonable to believe a mother would go 31 days without reporting her child was missing? That she did this because her upbringing was so warped that she feared going against her father that somehow she was emotionally capable of going out and partying during this one-month episode? That when her mother (who, you would think would also fear Casey's father just the same) confronts her endlessly about Caylee's whereabouts that Casey concocts the nanny-stole-my-baby-yet-i-still-chose-not-to-report-it-to-the-police defense?

Is any of that reasonable to you? And if so, what sick twisted world do you live in?

The defense argued it was a botched cover-up of an accidental drowning. Does that sound reasonable to you?

As stated, might as well have argued little green men in a spaceship did it. Seems people would've felt that reasonable as well.

Sykotyk;823890 wrote:Okay, let's assume her father killed her. Let's assume he taped her mouth. Let's assume he dumped the body. Let's assume Casey is innocent of murder.

Is it reasonable to believe a mother would go 31 days without reporting her child was missing? That she did this because her upbringing was so warped that she feared going against her father that somehow she was emotionally capable of going out and partying during this one-month episode? That when her mother (who, you would think would also fear Casey's father just the same) confronts her endlessly about Caylee's whereabouts that Casey concocts the nanny-stole-my-baby-yet-i-still-chose-not-to-report-it-to-the-police defense?

Is any of that reasonable to you? And if so, what sick twisted world do you live in?

The defense argued it was a botched cover-up of an accidental drowning. Does that sound reasonable to you?

As stated, might as well have argued little green men in a spaceship did it. Seems people would've felt that reasonable as well.

First of all, for a normal person...no I would not expect them to go 31 days without reporting their child missing. But this chick isn't normal. She's a pathological liar, and clearly has something wrong upstairs. So no, it's not crazy to think that if she knew what happened (even if it wasn't her that did it) that she would just go about life as if nothing was wrong.

I've already said that I think she did it. But based on the evidence provided, I don't think I would have been able to say "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" either.

I don't know about you all but the more I think about it, I'd love to be the first to hit it when she gets out. 3 yrs without the pole, bitch is gonna go crazy for it!! Though I think Baez will hit it, if he already hasn't it!

Fab1b;823895 wrote:I don't know about you all but the more I think about it, I'd love to be the first to hit it when she gets out. 3 yrs without the pole, bitch is gonna go crazy for it!! Though Baez already has!

Now in complete agreement.

Speedofsand;823866 wrote:wut? you want to be a troll one day and my friend the next? NO. You are a punk. I show class to those who deserve it.

be your friend? are you phucking serious?? why would I want to be a friend of anyone on a message board, let alone some smartass from redneckburg who likes to watch cars turn left all day....get real

justincredible;823873 wrote:lol, I also question what you having a college aged daughter has to do anything?

lol, and why might you feel the need to question that? someday, young justin, you may just understand

Heretic;823880 wrote:ALMIGHTY ZEUS HAS ARRIVED!!!

I lol'd

justincredible;823873 wrote:lol, I also question what you having a college aged daughter has to do anything?

lol, I'm sorry, but did he question that? Must've missed something there :rolleyes:

SnotBubbles;823718 wrote:Yep....she certainly paid her debt to society for killing her daughter..... :rolleyes:

She didn't kill her daughter in the eyes of the law.

gut;823813 wrote:Again, for like the umpteenth time, circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict. You have a body with duct tape over it, discarded in the woods. The reasonable assumption is murder - if there had been a bullet hole in her head would you still be saying they didn't put the gun in her hand or prove the cause of death? I mean, that'd be a heck of a way to cover up a drowning, no? Or perhaps you realize when you start to look at other aspects of the case you can reject the drowning theory.

There is no one else with access or motive, and in fact Casey Anthony's defense acknowledges her access and offers no alternative. Either you accept that she drowned, or the circumstantial evidence points to murder with no remotely reasonable alternative. The problem with drowning, as I mentioned, is there's absolutely nothing credible behind that theory - even if you get past the fact that no one covers up an accidental drowning, her actions and statements are not consistent with someone frantic/panicking and trying to cover things up. If you were going to cover things up, you report her missing immediately. If she were possibly kidnapped, then you have legit reasonable doubt. But as far the whole drowning theory posited by the defense, it was nothing more than **** thrown against the wall and the jury should have rejected it.

The defense might as well have offered up little green men, and apparently for that jury and some on this board that's enough for reasonable doubt, no matter how ridiculous the theory.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. Read up on how the justice system works and MAYBE you'll understand why Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder in the first degree.

Your hypotheticals are irrelevant. The point is, with all the evidence presented, there was nothing that lead the jury to believe Casey Anthony was responsible for her daughter's death. Especially since the DNA on the duct tape didn't match hers!

dwccrew;823935 wrote:Especially since the DNA on the duct tape didn't match hers!

This is the part that I don't understand as it relates to people not getting the doubt as it was presented.

We have a body.
We have duct tape.
We have DNA on the duct tape.
The DNA does not belong to our prime suspect. Aw, fuck it, she obviously did it because she is a liar.
What, is she such a good liar that she fooled the DNA test too?

I actually didn't know there was nonmatching (to Casey) DNA on the duct tape with that said do they know who's DNA, as in George or Cindy Anthony or unknown person?

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.

People lie to the police all the time over the dumbest, even non illegal things. I wouldnt put it past them.

gut;823012 wrote:Casey Anthony knew Caylie was dead...Does anyone really dispute that, don't her action and lies demonstrate that? Ok, Caylie drowned in an accident...So "reasonable doubt" is that Caylie panicked and tried to cover it up. When has that ever happened before for that to be a remotely plausible explanation? Little green aliens could have done it, too...at least some people believe they've actually seen little green aliens, which actually makes it slightly more plausible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

Fab1b;823958 wrote:I actually didn't know there was nonmatching (to Casey) DNA on the duct tape with that said do they know who's DNA, as in George or Cindy Anthony or unknown person?

I am not positive, but I think it was determined not to belong to Casey, George, or Cindy (or Caylee, for that matter).

GoChiefs;823788 wrote:Damn...due to the public outrage, Vivid has revoked their porn offer.

Vivid is retarded. They would make bank.

No one(here at least) thinks it needs to be like an episode of CSI. But they completely lacked any significant evidence other than the fact that a clearly crazy person from a crazy family acted differently than you'd expect a normal person to act.

Maybe if the cops that got the original call(or the 2nd, or the 3rd, or the 4th) had actually done their job, rather than ignoring the callers' insistence that there was a dead child on the property for 4 months, then they'd have been able to piece the puzzle together a little better. Instead, it was just the first sign of incompetence from the law enforcement/prosecutions side that plagued the entire trial.

If I had to guess, I would say she did it, but the reality is she did 3 years on some lousy misdemeanors, she should be let out ASAP.

"No one(here at least) thinks it needs to be like an episode of CSI"

Apparently you've ignored the several posts about the DNA evidence, on a decomposed body for months.

If you had to guess, really? Dude, she did it.

Manhattan Buckeye;824044 wrote:"No one(here at least) thinks it needs to be like an episode of CSI"

Apparently you've ignored the several posts about the DNA evidence, on a decomposed body for months.

If you had to guess, really? Dude, she did it.

What do you believe her motive was? Honest question.

Honest answer, her actions post-death. She didn't want the kid anymore. I'm really curious why people think there wasn't a motive. Again if a loved one of mine is missing for 30 days I don't go to Vegas and sniff coke off of hookers' rear ends without raising suspicion. It is difficult, REALLY difficult to raise young children, if it cramps one's style it can be an even more difficult situation.

Manhattan Buckeye;824067 wrote:Honest answer, her actions post-death. She didn't want the kid anymore. I'm really curious why people think there wasn't a motive. Again if a loved one of mine is missing for 30 days I don't go to Vegas and sniff coke off of hookers' rear ends without raising suspicion. It is difficult, REALLY difficult to raise young children, if it cramps one's style it can be an even more difficult situation.

That may have been the motive if she did indeed kill Caylee. But in a court of law, I just don't believe it to be enough to convict given the standards set by our justice system.

Manhattan Buckeye;824044 wrote:Apparently you've ignored the several posts about the DNA evidence, on a decomposed body for months.

None of that is "thinking it should be like CSI," just stating that the police officer's incompetence took away something that could have given more credibility to the case. Without it, they weren't left with enough to get a conviction in the minds of even a single juror. Some of these posts strike me very much as someone read an article or heard a story on "the CSI effect," and are now beating it into the ground.

If you had to guess, really? Dude, she did it.

Probably, but apparently the Prosecution came far from proving it. So despite the confidence of all these esteemed ohiochatter users, she unfortunately goes free.

"if"?, the judge benchslapped the jury with a four year sentence and the maximum fine for lying to authorities. That is a ridiculous sentence. If you or I get caught lying we might have to pay a small fine and perhaps get a few days of community service. This was the max, again, she did it.

Manhattan Buckeye;824067 wrote:Honest answer, her actions post-death. She didn't want the kid anymore. I'm really curious why people think there wasn't a motive. Again if a loved one of mine is missing for 30 days I don't go to Vegas and sniff coke off of hookers' rear ends without raising suspicion. It is difficult, REALLY difficult to raise young children, if it cramps one's style it can be an even more difficult situation.

Her life didn't change in those 30 days. She was already doing that shit. She lived with her parents. They took care of the kid when she did whatever she wanted to do.

If she'd had some spat with the parents where they told her to get her shit together or get out or if she'd voiced any kind of discontent with her life - if she'd told someone she needed to get out of the house but couldn't afford it, it'd be a lot easier to accept that. If there had been a break up or something where the core reason was that the dude didn't want a kid...something, anything to show that she'd felt the burden, I would buy it quickly. If she had previously shown anger issues. If she'd previously treated the child badly. All of the testimony, even from the prosecution witnesses were the exact opposite of all of that. This is just going from 0 to Murder out of nowhere and it is hard to believe.

"This is just going from 0 to Murder out of nowhere and it is hard to believe. "

It is hard to believe because there is a bias towards the idea that a woman would kill her child - it is a fictional novel but Caleb Carr's "Angel of Darkness" touches on the subject. It is an ok book, not great, but worth reading.

What is hard to believe is that there is any alternative. She did it.

Manhattan Buckeye;824118 wrote:It is hard to believe because there is a bias towards the idea that a woman would kill her child

Yeah, well, that is why it was so important that the prosecution come with something other than a theory.