<p>^^Wow, I feel so sorry for Cindy! I wonder if George was for or against taking those steps.</p>
<p>Thanks. You are all very gracious. I know that there are cold hearted killers out there, and the Diane Downs case does come to mind. Perhaps Casey does fit into that mold. It would not be a surprise to me if she did. There is ample evidence that she could. But we don’t know for sure. We don’t know how Caylee died. We don’t know when the duct tape was put on her. We can’t believe a danged thing Casey says at this point so we have to choose from the possibilities, and in doing so I cannot pick the worst one that would result in the death penalty. I believe the death penalty has a place in our system, but only in cases where the guilt is truly without reasonable doubt. For that reason, I don’t think the Scott Peterson case should be a capital one. Too many cases have come up where DNA or other high tech evidence shows that the convicted person indeed did not do the crime. </p>
<p>Going back to Casy’s situation, it is every bit as possible that she drugged the little girl and left her somewhere that killed her. Not to deliberately kill her, but to keep her out of the way while Casey partied. When she found the child dead, she could not take the blame as she should have since Casey has never been able to own up to any of her mistakes. Nothing new here. And it’s pretty clear that she disposed of the body using duct tape to keep it from dangling and from secretions that will come from the mouth and nose and perhaps to look like someone else did it. I think she even thought about burning the body, but could not pull it together that far. As it was, she dumped the body a very short distance from the house after not dealing with it at all for a few days–the smell of decomposition was what finally got her to dump the body. Till then, it appears to be have just been stuck in the trunk. Out of sight, out of mind.</p>
<p>The alternate scenario was that she deliberately killed Kaylee with chloroform or deliberately drowning or suffocating or poisoning her–absolutely no way that can be determined. It’s not always that easy to kill someone with chloroform, by the way–it’s not like in the movies where you drop immediately when you stick a hanky of it over someone’s nose. It can take a while. She’d have had to have had a perfect amount and a lot of discipline to hold it there till the child died. Since Caylee is a small child, it would not likely have taken long to put her out, but to get her dead with it is not all that easy. Easier to stop the breathing with a pillow or something. She would then wrap the body as she did and then drive around with it in her trunk? I don’t think so. I think she was presented with her dead daughter that she had negligently left a certain way, and wrapped the body to keep the fluids from leaking while she tried to figure out what to do next. That’s why the body was in the trunk so long. Had she thought this out at all, she would have dumped that body right away. It seems to me she didn’t know quite what to do with it which points to an accident, a negligent one that was caused by her but was not supposed to kill her, but not a coldhearted, deliberate murder.</p>
<p>The thing is, it had to be pretty clear to Casey, that Caylee was the goose that was bringing in the golden eggs in terms of funding and resources from the parents. I think the Anthonys made it amply clear that they were so fed up with Casey that the only reason they were putting up with her was because of the baby. She probably moved out to take care of Caylee on her own after threats that the parents were going to take custody and cut her off. If she were showing that she was adequately caring for Caylee on her own, it is doubtful that Cindy could wrest custody from her, as Casey is the natural mother.</p>
<p>I have a friend who is in the corner pretty much the same way. Would dump her daughter in an instant by now as she and her husband are just fed up dealing with her. But there are the grandchildren, and getting custody of them is dicey since the rules are on the side of the mother. On top of all of this, one of the babies was lost due to her having some low life babysitting for her while she was at work—the murder trial not getting the press like the Anthony case is still ongoing. The young woman is not caring for children well, but not so poorly that the kids can be taken away and custody given to my friend. Yet, the possibility for a disaster is too real as the death of one child has already proven. Truly a horrible Catch 22 situation.</p>
<p>So it comes down to whether we believe, Casey cold bloodedly killed Caylee or if it happened as a result of the natural carelessness, negligence that pretty much characterizes how she does any and every thing with no sure evidence either way. “Likely” is not even enough to hang a Murder 1 on a person, in my opinion. But, yes, I believe she should get the maximum sentence for what they can prove she did, and she did do some horrible, grisley things. </p>
<p>In my opinion, not reporting a dead body or a missing minor, for that matter and disposing of it should have very severe penalties right up there with murder. That way it does not leave that out for someone who is too scared of the consequences to report a death. Right now, it leaves open the chance that you get away with it, if it turns out you disposed of the body but it cannot be proven you caused the death. There was case where a husband ground up his wife’s body–that part of the case is irrefutable, he even admits it, but there is no proof he killed her other than why anyone would grind up a corpse. </p>
<p>I think the DA is grandstanding in asking for the death penalty here going by the publicity that the outrageousness of Casey’s actions and because she is such a despicable person and liar. He has no proof at all hat this is deliberate. It is possible but other possibilities are there that are just as possible. In the Scott Peterson case, there was plenty of motive since he was doing things that pointed to a no Laci future and talking about a life with his mistress; no casual affair was that. There has not been an ounce of evidence that Casey was thinking that way, and she is not a discrete person at all who did and spoke right as she felt with no compunction for consequences or propriety. If getting rid of Caylee were on her mind, she would have talked about it, I m sure, and she is incapable of doing things she doesn’t want to do in any thorough capacity, yet her efforts as a mother were acceptable over time, from what people could see. It is not at all consistent with someone who was plotting to kill her child. And the body shows no sign of a off the world trauma despite internet searches for broken necks, so it doesn’ t look like she went of a crazy binge and beat the kid in anger. </p>
<p>It is not that easy to kill anybody on purpose either. Or even sedate them with the 100% knowledge that they are going to stay sedated. It’s one thing to use Benedryl or other OTC or even prescription drugs to get a child groggy and quiet, but to ensure that the child will not get up is a whole other story. Getting a dose that would ensure a kid stays knocked out in a car for many hours is not easy to ensure–probably impossible as different med affect different people in different ways. Maybe she drugged Kaylee and duct taped her to keep her from moving and had her in the trunk of the car? Horrible thought. And ODed the child in the process which is the other danger when you go down that path. </p>
<p>But we’ll never know what really happened because even if Casey should come clean, there isn’t any evidence to prove it. That has all been eradicated over time, and we can’t believe a thing she says. </p>
<p>In my opinion, she should have come up with a more believable defense story over blaming her father, which is so unbelievable that the police are not even batting an eye, nor the family for that matter. It is just too unbelievable. Had she come up with a scenario closer to the truth that fit the facts in the case, I think a jury would pretty much have to believe it as there is no evidence to the contrary. But Casey being Casey cannot bear to take responsibility for anything, even when her life depends on it.</p>
<p>Short of going to court and getting custody of Caylee, the Anthonys could not do anything about how Casey did or did not care for her, as it was short of the standards of neglect and abuse. I’m sure they thought about doing this, but the hurdles are real and the chances are slim. My friend has wanted to do this and still does with her grandchildren, but even though a child was killed, it still is not enough to take the kids away. What one has to do, which my friend did, and perhaps Cindy did, is kick out the mom and kid(s). When my friend did this, her daughter shacked up with someone who killed one of the children==not at all the mom’s fault direct, all she did was have the guy babysit and he killed the kid; she was taking everyday reasonable care of the children. And yes, my friend is emotionally destroyed over this, and no counselor has any answer for that consequence when it happens. Very bad advice when the person is truly incompetent to care for children but still above the line the law considers adequate. Too many families operate that way, and the chances are still good that the kids will survive and be ok. A lot of people have negelectful, careless mothers. It’s abuse that clearly shows a line being crossed. The rest is very gray area. Not easy to get custody on those grounds. Expensive and you are likely to lose especially when the mom shapes up for short periods of time. </p>
<p>I don’t have any answers for my friend, nor would I have had for Cindy Anthony. </p>
<p>An old time friend of mine was wild in her younger days, and an accidental pregnancy and keeping her daughter made her grow up very quickly. She raised that child very well. Sometimes it does work, but in Casey’s situation, it did not. The child became something that made supporting Casey essential to the parents as punishing Casey, punishes the child, and in this case the punishment was ultimate. I don’t think the Anthonys will ever get over that.</p>
<p>We don’t know how Caylee died. We don’t know when the duct tape was put on her. We can’t believe a danged thing Casey says at this point so we have to choose from the possibilities,</p>
<p>We don’t know how Laci Peterson died either…but Scott is on death Row.</p>
<p>I think the DA is grandstanding in asking for the death penalty here going by the publicity that the outrageousness of Casey’s actions and because she is such a despicable person and liar. He has no proof at all hat this is deliberate.</p>
<p>He doesn’t have to have any proof that it was deliberate…death from child abuse is Felony Murder.</p>
<p>And…the prosecution doesn’t have to show motive either…not required.</p>
<p>However, I don’t think Casey is going to get the DP. I think that the prosecution only wanted a DP qualified jury. That was one of the lessons after the OJ trial. In states where the DP is legal…go for the DP so that you can have a DP qualified jury since they are more likely to convict based on what’s presented …even is they end up recommending LWOP…which is fine.</p>
<p>Supposedly, the prosecution will be wrapping up today.</p>
<p>Something interesting was played on TV last night . It was from a week ago. The mom, Cindy, was asked when did she stop looking for “Zany the Nanny” and Cindy said “6 weeks ago.” OMG…Cindy was still believing the Zany story up to 6 weeks ago? </p>
<p>The odd thing was that the prosecution didn’t follow up her answer with the logical question…what made you stop looking for Zany? The answer would have been telling because it was likely at that point, the defense had spoken to them and had given them a heads up that there never had been a nanny, that Caylee (supposedly) drowned, etc. </p>
<p>It would have been interesting for the prosecution to ask those Q’s because there is no atty/client privilege between parents and Baez (which is why Baez kept them in the dark for 3 years). </p>
<p>Anyway…it shows how much the parents could be in denial if they still believed that there was a nanny up to 6 weeks ago. Again, it would be amazing to be a fly on the wall in that home if they’ve just come to this realization. They have spent thousands of dollars over 3 years looking for Zany…and these are not affluent people. They must be besides themselves about that (in addition to all the other crap…and the more serious loss of their GrandD.)</p>
<p>
In those circumstances, not only would I be in denial, I would be actively praying for denial. Accepting the obvious would be impossible for me to live with and I don’t mean that in a hysterical or rhetorical fashion. If I had to accept that my daughter had murdered my beloved grandchild I would lose my mind. Sometimes denial is a saving grace.</p>
<p>*Sometimes denial is a saving grace. *</p>
<p>I agree…but you’d think that they would have accepted that there was no Zany…but that something else had happened. </p>
<p>When Cindy was on the stand, sometimes she would talk as if she still believed that Casey was working. Instead of saying, “well, Casey was claiming to be working that day…” or “Casey was claiming to be at the hospital with Zany,”…she would say, “Casey was at work” or “Casey was in Tampa at a hospital with Zany.” odd!!</p>
<p>The defense has almost certainly given the parents a talking to as to what is detrimental and even deadly to say, and what is not. With the DP on the table, the parents are in a terrible emotional bind. I doubt they can bear that happening, so they will play ball and say what they have to say, to keep their daughter’s chances higher for a conviction of sorts. THey won’t out and out lie, but will change their outlooks, I’m sure. The smell of the decomposing body suddenly can be explained by old pizza or dirty diapers. The fact of the matter, is that there are probably times when Cindy believes streaks of what Casey says. There may have been someone named Zany or a sitter in the picture somewhere, who the heck knows., just not in the capacity that Casey has told the story.</p>
<p>Really what the prosecution can sell the jury is what matters at this point. If I were on the jury, unless there is a lot more that I am not getting, I could not come up with a M1 verdict for her. That it is a capital case, makes it even unlikely. I am not at all adverse to her staying incarcerated for the rest of her life.</p>
<p>For the Scott Peterson case, I don’t think he should get the DP either since the evidence is circumstantial. But, yes, I believe he killed her and killed her deliberately. The timing and coincidences along with motive just make it unreasonable that anything else happened to her. Had her body not washed up, he might have gotten away, but the whole thing really points to him too clearly.</p>
<p>
I think she held out for as long as she possible could and either something happened (which is most likely), or reason overtook hope. And I agree with you about the parents being in the most horrible position I can imagine. Like something out of a horror story. Frankly, I think in my soul that I would do everything I could to save my daughter from the death penalty, and I would hold onto that denial way past the point that a sane or rational person would. It’s her child, you know? There is such a strong element of self preservation involved in protecting our children because they are a part of us. Which is one of the most profound aspects of motherhood for me, and one that I never expected until my firstborn was placed in my arms.</p>
<p>Orlando, FL- Judge Perry calls the defense team Liars- Not a good sign. Yesterday, during Chief Judge Perrys announcement to the jury about the tentative schedule for the remainder of the murder trial against Casey Anthony, defense counsel Cheney Mason objected and asked for a sidebar.</p>
<p>Mason: We dont have any obligation to put on any evidence at all. and you just told the jurors you expect us to be putting on evidence, and we may or we may not.</p>
<p>Mason went on to request that the Judge instruct the jury that they are not obligated to put on a defense, and claimed Jeff Ashton agreed with him.</p>
<pre><code> Chief Judge Perry: Then Yall lied to me.
Mason: NO.
</code></pre>
<p>Chief Judge Perry: Yes the Hell you did If you dont put on any evidence, then I will do that.</p>
<pre><code> Mason: Well, we are, so dont worry about it.
Chief Judge Perry: … I will take I cannot trust one thing your side says, anymore."
</code></pre>
<p>Wow, the defense was considering not presenting a case? They thought they had won based on the plaintiffs presentation and cross? And the judge calling them on it?</p>
<p>I’m not sure what it all means. It sounded to me that the defense was taking issue with the judge for saying (in front of the jury) that the defense would begin presenting their case on Thursday. </p>
<p>So, after the jury left, the defense objected to the judge’s words and the above transpired.</p>
<p>Technically, the defense doesn’t have to do anything, they don’t have to present evidence, experts, anything. But, since they had earlier said things that suggested that they would, the judge was just “going from there.” That’s why the judge said that they were liars.</p>
<p>The judge has been annoyed with the defense…even months back when some things they said/presented/wrote bordered on rudeness.</p>
<p>Murder one, life in prison.</p>
<p>My view of sentencing is that it’s not so much punishment *for *the offender but protection *from *the offender for the rest of us. It doesn’t bother me one bit that the case against this woman is mostly circumstantial. Society is better off without an irresponsible, compulsive liar who isn’t moved enough by the death of her child her child to be honest about it.</p>
<p>I do, however, prefer to see her in prison for life rather than executed. First, it will give her plenty of time to feel bad about herself (if she’s capable of that). Second, it preserves the possibility that one day she will come clean. And if coming clean includes providing evidence that she didn’t kill Caylee after all, then the time she serves is her punishment for not telling the truth in the first place.</p>
<p>Can you imagine being incarcerated with her? How horrible would that be? Maybe the real punishment of being incarcerated is to have to share space with people like her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that the defense was trying to point out something that could possibly be viewed as an error by the judge in case they wanted to bring it up during appeals. Isn’t it true that you can’t raise an issue of this sort on appeal if it wasn’t mentioned during the trial??</p>
<p>It would only be an issue on appeal IF the defense did not put on a defense, and rested when the plaintiffs rested their case. If they did not put on a defense and the judge told the jury they would, there could be an issue.</p>
<p>Cptofthehouse, your post #202 is very plausible:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s too bad (for Casey) that her attorneys are instead going with the very implausible theory that it was an accidental drowning and that George knew about it and helped cover it up. (Imagine – a former police officer covering up an accidental drowning by instead making it look like a premeditated murder – and not even hiding the body very well!) She might have gotten off with manslaughter or negligent homicide under Cpt’s theory.</p>
<p>I feel so sorry for Cindy. Imagine the horror of finding out your child killed your grandchild, and then having to testify, with the possibility that your testimony might help send your child to her execution.</p>
<p><a href=“Imagine%20–%20a%20former%20police%20officer%20covering%20up%20an%20accidental%20drowning%20by%20instead%20making%20it%20look%20like%20a%20premeditated%20murder%20–%20and%20not%20even%20hiding%20the%20body%20very%20well!”>I</a> *</p>
<p>that’s why their story isn’t plausible. And, remember, they aren’t presenting this as a “theory” (like in Scott Peterson trial when the defense proposed that it was possible that some satanic group kidnapped Laci to get her baby). No…the defense is presenting this story as “fact” told to them by Casey. </p>
<p>And, yes, a former cop is going to know that an accidental drowning rarely ever results in arrest/prison time (who’s ever heard of one???), so for Baez to claim that Geo told Casey that she would get life in prison for the drowning is ridiculous (unless he found Caylee in the pool anchored down with a weight). </p>
<p>And…certainly, a cop KNOWS that criminals often dispose of bodies within a rather close radius to their homes, so he would know not to do that! And, he woudn’t have used products that could be tied to the home…Pooh blanket, special duct tape, etc. </p>
<p>And…a former cop would not be found “holding a dripping drowned child”…no…a former cop would be found doing CPR on the child and yelling “call 911”.</p>
<p>Cptofthehouse, you nailed it.</p>
<p>Now the defense wants to call a new witness:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the girl drowned in the pool accidentally, then why would this be relevant? But this statement is intriguing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this just more BS by the defense?</p>