Manhattan Buckeye;822196 wrote:They can't say or else risk being deported.

Seriously, what did people want? The have a body, a motive, and a trail of lies and a ridiculous excuse by the defense. What else could the prosecution do? Post a youtube video of the act? The case largely depended on circumstantial evidence. If we couldn't convict anyone without an eyewitness or CSI level DNA evidence (which never occurs), there would be few convictions.

Evidently the jurors needed more. They didn't have one piece of physical evidence so I guess they just couldn't fully connect the dots. Hard to say without actually sitting through the whole trial.

I caught just a little bit of the nancy grace show last night, she seemed devistated.

This murder one charge requires the highest level of proof in Florida. When the death penalty is in play I'm O.K. with that. It appears there was simply too much uncertainty creating doubt.

[video=youtube;ulO8rl7z5xQ][/video]

Fast Forward to 12:30 to hear Nancy

OneBuckeye;822206 wrote:Evidently the jurors needed more. They didn't have one piece of physical evidence so I guess they just couldn't fully connect the dots. Hard to say without actually sitting through the whole trial.

The body wasn't physical evidence? The kid was dead. Little girls of that age don't just end up being buried in that manner.

Manhattan Buckeye;822214 wrote:The body wasn't physical evidence? The kid was dead. Little girls of that age don't just end up being buried in that manner.

Hard to say without being on the Jury, one reason I don't get why people act like we don't have a system that is innocent before proven guilty.

Its hard to say that a girl that age buried herself!

I haven't followed the case that closely, but the rush to fellate the jury on this seems strange. Obviously there was foul play involved. A monkey knows that.

Manhattan Buckeye;822220 wrote:Its hard to say that a girl that age buried herself!

I haven't followed the case that closely, but the rush to fellate the jury on this seems strange. Obviously there was foul play involved. A monkey knows that.

No shit, but apparently there is not enough evidence to prove that Casey put her there. If you haven't followed the case closely then why are you quick to judge? I am sure 12 people did their due diligence and got it right based on what was presented.

Manhattan Buckeye;822196 wrote:They can't say or else risk being deported.

Seriously, what did people want? The have a body, a motive, and a trail of lies and a ridiculous excuse by the defense. What else could the prosecution do? Post a youtube video of the act? The case largely depended on circumstantial evidence. If we couldn't convict anyone without an eyewitness or CSI level DNA evidence (which never occurs), there would be few convictions.

Between the input of one of the alternate jurors, some thoughts of the "experts", and my own observations, here's a summary of why the couple of things you mentioned didn't work:

Body - There was no cause of death determined. Initially, the prosecution said she used chloroform. Later, they said she suffocated her with duct tape. The "ridiculous" excuse by the defense was that the child drowned. No evidence distinguished which of those theories was more plausible, but the prosecution came off sounding like they were guessing. There was nothing to tie Casey to the chloroform (where/how did she get/make it?) anyway and her mom stated that she did the internet search. Also, the duct tape was a fairly rare type and was traced back to George Anthony (they had pics of the same tape on his gas cans). Also, while it seemed insane that they'd tape her mouth if it were an accident, that was a common practice that George performed when burying family pets.

Edit: One other key piece in the drowning explanation - the day after the drowning allegedly took place, Cindy Anthony had mentioned to a co-worker that she recalled putting the pool ladder away but when she returned home (the night before she made the comment) the ladder was against the pool, so someone must've been in the pool. Supposedly, both George and Casey were at the home on the day in question.

Motive - It is a stretch to go from wishing you could party more to killing your own child. The grandparents were perfectly willing to keep the child while Casey partied as it was. There was no prior abuse and there wasn't really anything to indicate Casey resented the child. The proposed motive was all based on Casey's actions after the death and the jury just didn't buy that all of a sudden she decided partying while the kid was at Grandma's wasn't good enough, the child had to be completely eliminated.

Trail of Lies - The defense never tried to downplay Casey's reaction and lies. What they did do was point to George as the model for why Casey became that type of person. I didn't understand while watching why the defense focused so much on George, but now it all makes sense (and obviously worked). The alternate juror who spoke to the news more or less said that George was the one witness whose credibility was questioned.

The reasonable doubt comes from believing that George is an overbearing ass and Casey never knew anything but doing what daddy said to do or to lie to avoid him, so it sounds reasonable to think that they both knew what happened (whether it was a drowning or otherwise) and both covered it up (meaning Casey again did exactly what daddy said to do and lied about it to everyone else). Nobody really tried to pin it on George, but he could just as easily be tied to all of the key details as Casey, which is enough to make people doubt that it was murder.

"The reasonable doubt comes from believing that George is an overbearing ass and Casey never knew anything but doing what daddy said to do or to lie to avoid him, "

The issue is still "reasonable", not without question, this is one effed up family no doubt, and I could say aside from legal considerations there is a 99.9999999% chance she offed the kid, no one else had motive and the "accident defense" was just a hail mary. I don't blame the jury at all, but no one else had a single motive to kill the girl, no one else could even be tied to the area, and no one else got caught in a web of lies for 3 years.

She killed the girl, perhaps the prosecution didn't prove the case, but I don't see what they did wrong.

Manhattan Buckeye;822196 wrote:They can't say or else risk being deported.

Seriously, what did people want? The have a body, a motive, and a trail of lies and a ridiculous excuse by the defense. What else could the prosecution do? Post a youtube video of the act? The case largely depended on circumstantial evidence. If we couldn't convict anyone without an eyewitness or CSI level DNA evidence (which never occurs), there would be few convictions.

^This. People get convicted on a similar mound of circumstantial evidence all the time. Marcia Clark was on saying she thought the prosecution made their case. On the other hand, a fair number of people seemed to think they overcharged the case while being reluctant to criticize. That may have been the critical error, because I don't think they proved premeditation - basically all they had was the chloroform search and then a plausible scenario of what happened. Even if you look at the defense, as a lot of people pointed out, they didn't really defend that she didn't do it, which is why they offered the excuse for abuse and all of that.

Although Dr. Drew was on and made an interesting point - he said he's worked with similarly broken people and he's never seen or heard of anyone killing their child in that circumstance. But it's probably apples to oranges - we have seen mothers commit suicide while killing their children. And there's always the exception.

At the end of the day, I think the jury held an unreasonable standard of "reasonable doubt". Like many on this board, they seem to think the lack of a smoking gun implies reasonable doubt, and that's not necessarily the case.

OneBuckeye;822225 wrote:No ****, but apparently there is not enough evidence to prove that Casey put her there. If you haven't followed the case closely then why are you quick to judge? I am sure 12 people did their due diligence and got it right based on what was presented.

Multiple witnesses said her car smelled like a dead body. A rotting animal (and I assume, a human body) is unmistakeable from trash. Her mother was shown to be lying about doing the chloroform search (work records proved she couldn't have been home). I've never heard of someone covering up an accidental drowning, and she doesn't even report the child missing for 31 days until her mom tracks her down. Saying the nanny - who didn't exist - kidnapped her daughter is proof she knew what happened in my eyes. And to go out partying isn't remotely consistent with someone who just lost their child. How could anyone do that to a child to cover up an accidental drowning? That's not reasonable doubt in my book, especially when you consider the 30-some odd chloroform searches.

How did the child end-up in the woods? Well, clearly Casey Anthony put her there when you look at what the child had and was wearing, and the smell in the trunk.

Manhattan Buckeye;822236 wrote:"The reasonable doubt comes from believing that George is an overbearing ass and Casey never knew anything but doing what daddy said to do or to lie to avoid him, ".

But the defense never proved George was abusive and the judge ordered the jury to ignore any claims or insinuation of molestation/abuse. You want to talk about not proving anything - the defense threw out a bunch of scenarios and failed to give any of them credibility. It's not the job of the prosecution to shoot down every explanation - they present evidence (including circumstantial) and connect the dots then it IS on the defense to come up with a reasonable explanation (which if they do then the prosecution has to counter).

Manhattan Buckeye;822162 wrote: There isn't a smoking gun or courtroom confession. Perhaps some jurors won't ever convict on circumstantial evidence regardless of the probability. The standard is reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

That may very well be. I've heard lawyers don't particularly care for overly intelligent people on the jury. The most surprising thing, though, is how briefly they deliberated. I can see a few not being swayed on circumstantial evidence, but you would have expected that to be a knock-down, drag out confrontation. For 12 jurors to come back with that verdict in only 10 hours is shocking.

Manhattan Buckeye;822236 wrote:"The reasonable doubt comes from believing that George is an overbearing ass and Casey never knew anything but doing what daddy said to do or to lie to avoid him, "

The issue is still "reasonable", not without question, this is one effed up family no doubt, and I could say aside from legal considerations there is a 99.9999999% chance she offed the kid, no one else had motive and the "accident defense" was just a hail mary. I don't blame the jury at all, but no one else had a single motive to kill the girl, no one else could even be tied to the area, and no one else got caught in a web of lies for 3 years.

She killed the girl, perhaps the prosecution didn't prove the case, but I don't see what they did wrong.

Tied to what area? Casey Anthony couldn't be tied to the area the body was found. And they don't know the actual murder/accident scene, so she can't be tied to that either.

I don't know, I was all on the "fry the bitch" train until I watched the trial. I "think" she had something to do with it - whatever "it" is. I "doubt" she meant to kill the kid. It is reasonable for me to believe that she fucked up big time without intending for the child to die. I guess I'm with the crowd that can't make the leap from idiot party girl to cold-blooded murderer - that seems much less reasonable to me.

"That may very well be. I've heard lawyers don't particularly care for overly intelligent people on the jury. "

I don't know about intellect, but they don't want lawyers on the jury!

I've only been called once and before I was dismissed on the matter - criminal domestic violence case - the prosecutor during the selection process asked everyone if they could convict on the woman's statement alone, without corroboration by a third person and she repeatedly stated (paraphrased) "This is not Law and Order, I'm not Sam Waterston and this is not a tv show" over and over again. Don't know how it turned out, I was kicked off.

"I "doubt" she meant to kill the kid. It is reasonable for me to believe that she ****ed up big time without intending for the child to die"

What do you think, she didn't stop aliens from abducting the kid and burying it near their house? The kid is dead, there is physical evidence, the body and its location.

Manhattan Buckeye;822251 wrote:the prosecutor during the selection process asked everyone if they could convict on the woman's statement alone, without corroboration by a third person and she repeatedly stated (paraphrased) "This is not Law and Order, I'm not Sam Waterston and this is not a tv show" over and over again.

I would have started laughing uncontrollably and been immediately dismissed.

gut;822258 wrote:I would have started laughing uncontrollably and been immediately dismissed.

You wouldn't have had to have done that if you are a married male that works. If I recall the jury selection correctly, it was 9 women (many that didn't work), an unmarried flight attendant and two unmarried younger guys that I don't think had full time jobs out of a pool of around 50.

Have no idea how that case turned out, my guess is plea deal, it wasn't a major charge in the first place.

gut;822242 wrote:Multiple witnesses said her car smelled like a dead body. A rotting animal (and I assume, a human body) is unmistakeable from trash. Her mother was shown to be lying about doing the chloroform search (work records proved she couldn't have been home). I've never heard of someone covering up an accidental drowning, and she doesn't even report the child missing for 31 days until her mom tracks her down. Saying the nanny - who didn't exist - kidnapped her daughter is proof she knew what happened in my eyes. And to go out partying isn't remotely consistent with someone who just lost their child. How could anyone do that to a child to cover up an accidental drowning? That's not reasonable doubt in my book, especially when you consider the 30-some odd chloroform searches.

How did the child end-up in the woods? Well, clearly Casey Anthony put her there when you look at what the child had and was wearing, and the smell in the trunk.

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.)

Manhattan Buckeye;822257 wrote:"I "doubt" she meant to kill the kid. It is reasonable for me to believe that she ****ed up big time without intending for the child to die"

What do you think, she didn't stop aliens from abducting the kid and burying it near their house? The kid is dead, there is physical evidence, the body and its location.

Okay, smart guy. How did the kid die? Tell me exactly what happened.

enigmaax;822270 wrote:Okay, smart guy. How did the kid die? Tell me exactly what happened.

Wrongful death. The kid didn't bury herself.

Manhattan Buckeye;822271 wrote:Wrongful death. The kid didn't bury herself.

Great, that isn't murder. And that doesn't address who is responsible.

gut;822242 wrote:Multiple witnesses said her car smelled like a dead body. A rotting animal (and I assume, a human body) is unmistakeable from trash. Her mother was shown to be lying about doing the chloroform search (work records proved she couldn't have been home). I've never heard of someone covering up an accidental drowning, and she doesn't even report the child missing for 31 days until her mom tracks her down. Saying the nanny - who didn't exist - kidnapped her daughter is proof she knew what happened in my eyes. And to go out partying isn't remotely consistent with someone who just lost their child. How could anyone do that to a child to cover up an accidental drowning? That's not reasonable doubt in my book, especially when you consider the 30-some odd chloroform searches.

How did the child end-up in the woods? Well, clearly Casey Anthony put her there when you look at what the child had and was wearing, and the smell in the trunk.

Didn't the prosecution use one matrix to get to the number of times chloroform was searched and showed it was searched for 81 times? And then the defense used a different matrix, and showed that it was searched for once. That tends to discredit the prosecution. If they are exaggerating about that, or have bad information, how can you really trust the rest of their case?

gut;822244 wrote:But the defense never proved George was abusive and the judge ordered the jury to ignore any claims or insinuation of molestation/abuse. You want to talk about not proving anything - the defense threw out a bunch of scenarios and failed to give any of them credibility. It's not the job of the prosecution to shoot down every explanation - they present evidence (including circumstantial) and connect the dots then it IS on the defense to come up with a reasonable explanation (which if they do then the prosecution has to counter).

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. And it IS the job of the prosecution to shoot down the explanation. That's why it's called proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You may not think what the defense was saying was reasonable. And the prosecution must not have either. But the jury sure did. And they ruled because of it.

There's a lot of big questions that were not answered in the case by the prosecution. And I'm sure that's where things went wrong for them.
HOW did the baby die? Was it the chloroform, or the duct tape? Not being able to prove this is a really big hit for the prosecution. In his closing argument, the prosecutor said possibly the most damning statement of the case when he said, "we can only hope Casey used the chloroform first before she put the duct tape on Caylee's mouth so she didn't have to suffer when she died." You can only HOPE?! This is a capital murder case. You better not hope...you better fucking know. And you better make sure everyone in that jury box knows.
Where did she die? They say she was in the trunk, but there was no evidence to back that up except for a single hair from the baby. They even tore apart vacuum cleaners in the house looking for hairs that Casey may have cleaned out of her car and there were none. I don't have any kids, but I have nieces and nephews. And they get into EVERYTHING. I'm willing to bet their hair is in my brother's trunk right now.

With the type of duct tape used, it's not unreasonable to think that maybe Casey's dad had a hand in this or committed the act himself. So with that reasonable possibility in the minds of the jurors, how could you possibly expect them to render a guilty verdict?

enigmaax;822274 wrote:Great, that isn't murder. And that doesn't address who is responsible.

Who was responsible for her well being was her mother, where was she again? Or did a Hispanic babysitter or Duke lacrosse player take her away?