<p>If we’re ever going to hear the truth, Casey has to be found guilty first. Suppose she really is innocent, and then is acquitted. Then she’ll have no motive for telling what really happened. But if she’s innocent and then wrongly imprisoned, once away from her father for a while, she’ll eventually realize that she’s taking the fall for him unfairly, and she’ll come out with the truth.</p>
<p>That’s IF she’s innocent, which I don’t believe.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if she’s guilty, we will never know the truth, period.</p>
<p>It had to have been Casey who came up with the pet burial stuff</p>
<p>Actually, Casey’s friend, Kiomarie told the police 3 years ago and she and Casey used to bury their pets in that same area. so, Baez has known that story for 3 years.</p>
<p>I missed the pet-burial thing. Are they saying that Casey used to bury dead pets in the same area where Caylee was found? If so, then doesn’t that make it more likely that Casey killed her daughter?</p>
<p>Well, it’s quite possible that I am completely incapable of believing a mother would murder her own child at all, let alone with duct tape.</p>
<p>However, I was listening to what the men who were writing in were saying and also the women, and all of the women felt sorry for “George” and every last man thought he was a complete and total liar. So, there’s that.</p>
<p>I think this mother is a horrific liar, and completely dysfunctional. I am also of the opinion that there is enough doubt, the moving of the body after she was already in prison, the father himself, even the suicide note of his “failing her”…people kill themselves when they can’t forgive themselves. I don’t know. I’m just not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter.</p>
<p>I’m convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she was an unfit mother…but, not that she’s a murderer.</p>
<p>poetgrl, you may be right—count me as another man who doesn’t trust George—but I still contend that the only way we’ll ever hear the truth is if she’s wrongly convicted. It’s the only scenario that creates a motive for her ever to tell what she knows. I submit that if you want to know what really happened, then you want her to be innocent but convicted anyway. Then it will come out.</p>
<p>poetgrl, even if you can’t believe that Casey murdered her toddler, that is not the same as concluding that the grandfather did it. If you think the grandfather did it, I’d love to hear on what basis you conclude that. He was formerly in law enforcement and one would think he could have covered his tracks better than what was found in discovery. Also, what motivation would he have for killing his grandchild? And if he did it, do you really think he would let his own daughter take the fall for it? I find that notion implausible and no evidence to back it up.</p>
<p>(and why would the dead tot have been in Casey’s trunk??)</p>
<p>Yes. Of course, I was completely convinced OJ was guilty and the jury disagreed. So, who knows?</p>
<p>Nobody in this situation is “innocent,” imho, but I just don’t know if it was murder, or an accident, or who was responsible. I’m simply convinced it was either Casey or her father who was to “blame,” but for what? I cannot tell.</p>
<p>There is no conclusive evidence that the body was moved while she was in jail. In fact, the defense expert testimony in that regard didn’t go very well. It is a question of fact before the jury, but not a given by any means.</p>
<p>This is a silly question IF he murdered his grand daughter. </p>
<p>As for the rest of it, I don’t know. The guy just seems guilty to me, as much so as his daughter… He is a liar, also. But, it is what it is. I’m not on the jury.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, as you know, Cartera, probably better than I do, the defense does not have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter. I think there is reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>The judge just ruled that computer records detailing the searches is admissible. Those records will likely strongly suggest that Cindy was lying.</p>
<p>Why is it a silly question, poetgrl? If you think the Dad murdered his grandchild, I’m just wondering if he’d allow his own daughter to take the fall for it. Obviously anyone who murdered someone doesn’t have much conscious, but this still is hard to imagine. Likewise, many think that it is hard to believe that if Casey did indeed murder or accidentally kill her child, that she’d allow her own dad to take the fall.</p>
<p>One more thing…I recall back when this all happened, there were videos of visits at the jailhouse where the two grandparents were pleading with Casey to help them find their missing grandchild. Now, the grandfather could be a good actor, but it is hard to imagine if he was truly involved in the child’s death, that he’d go quite so far in pleading with Casey to help them find the missing tot.</p>
<p>And one more thing…if the grandfather did it, then why would Casey need to make up a story of an accidental drowning that she was part of and where the grandfather helped take care of the body? If Casey had nothing to do with the murder and the grandfather is the guilty one, Casey would be telling some other sort of story. Further, if Casey found her child missing (cause her dad murdered the baby behind her back), wouldn’t she be desperately looking for her own child???</p>
<p>Casey is not testifying so there is no evidence of abuse to be argued. Hopefully, the jury is disciplined enough to disregard the nonsense in the opening statement. Even if it is true, they can’t rely on it. They will also be instructed not to rely on the testimony of River Cruz as evidence that it was an accident so there is no evidence in the record that it was an accident. I don’t know how they come to any other conclusion other than murder - based on the evidence.</p>
<p>I don’t find poetgrl’s suggestion all that unlikely. Yes, it’s hard to imagine a father killing his granddaughter and framing his daughter for the murder, but no harder than it is to believe that a mother would kill her daughter and then say that it was accidental and that her father was in on the cover-up. In fact, at this point it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that any of the Anthonys, or all of them, were in on it, and that they’re all lying.</p>
<p>cartera, I don’t even understand that even if Casey was abused as a child, how it has bearing or not on her guilt in the case of her child’s death. </p>
<p>Also, while I did not watch the trial, but only read news articles, I agree that River Cruz’ testimony that George mentioned it was a terrible accident proves nothing. One could infer that he meant his grandchild is dead and he was assuming that there was some terrible accident involving his daughter and the tot, and not that HE was involved in any sort of “accident.” His alleged statement to River Cruz about an accident is really here nor there as it doesn’t imply any knowledge on his end of what happened but just an assumption that some accident had to have happened (why would he want to believe his own daughter purposely murdered the baby?).</p>
<p>mantori, I think Cindy Anthony is lying about the computer searches to save her daughter’s life. I cannot fathom in a million years that Cindy Anthony had anything to do with the grandchild’s death. Her anguish from the start has been palpable. She appeared, as well, to adore the grandchild, and may have wanted to raise her herself. I do not believe she was involved in the murder at all (or any accident either).</p>
<p>I didn’t mean that I seriously think Cindy could be involved, or Lee. I only meant that, as crazy as that family seems to be, anything seems possible.</p>
<p>soozie - they wanted to use the abuse argument to show that her behavior after the death of Kaylee was not as bizarre as we all see it. Abuse victims don’t show normal emotions. </p>
<p>The Cruz testimony can only go to impeach George’s credibility - not as any evidence that there was an accident. Of course, the defense hopes that someone on the jury will be unable to not use it as substantive evidence and think it was an accident. There is not a shred of evidence that there was an accident. In light of the presence of chloroform, Casey’s behavior after the disappearance, her unwillingness to cooperate, the decomposition in the car, the location of the body, the computer searches, there is a lot of evidence that Casey killed her.</p>
<p>soozie-- I just meant that any man who would murder his granddaughter? It seems odd to offer up the idea that he would never let his daughter take the fall? </p>
<p>The whole family seems in on it, to me. The father seems to be the one in control of the family. </p>
<p>I don’t think the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion. For all we know, the whole family said, “say whatever needs to be said to get the doubt in there.” </p>
<p>The whole thing is a mess, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a drowning and that they freaked out the way people do in a hit and run situation. Regardless, I’ve never felt the parent’s 'didn’t know."</p>
<p>They were trying to find their daughter and to find out where the granddaughter was. For a while, they seemed to believe Casey’s lies about Zanny and all the rest. Casey lies SO much and I believe she has lied a great deal to her parents all along. I don’t think the parents are in cahoots with her or knew everything all along. What I think now is happening is that the parents are trying to save Casey from the death penalty (they are parents after all, no matter how terrible the things are that their D may have done). They are willing to lie for her now (or at least Cindy is). Not sure how the father feels because Casey is pinning the whole thing on him.</p>
<p>poetgrl, if you think it was a drowning (that the whole family knew about), then why all the chloroform found (plus the searches)? Why would the tot have been in the car so long while dead? I can’t imagine the father going along with that arrangement when he was a former law enforcement officer and would know how dumb that would be to have evidence in the car trunk!</p>