<p>Well, there is no direct forensic evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is there. A child does not get duct tape across their face accidentally. A mom does not ignore the child’s absence for a month. There is the smell from the car, the internet searches having to do with breaking necks and making chloroform. There is no requirement that there be direct forensic evidence. The jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. Time will tell. All of the lies will be problematic.</p>
<p>They will be problematic. But who put that tape on that child’s mouth? Did Casey just leave the child somewhere carelessly and when the child was gone, just went along her merry way like it was a bill she mislaid? I doubt it, but there is a big jump from knowing the child was gone and refusing to acknowledge, report it deal with it, and actively killing the child. Though her behavior, her lies, her history all are horrendous and do not lend themselves to sympathy there is only circumstantial evidence and no direct proof that Casey did it. </p>
<p>Personally, I think she drugged her daughter and left her somewhere while she was out carousing and found her dead. Did not want to deal with the problem, so hid the body, and ignored the problem until her mother reported it and forced the issue. Then could not bear to say what she did, so she lied, lied, lied, pathological liar as she is. Of course, she could have also just tired of the child and killed her, just suffocating her, and then got rid of the body. Or had a sick boyfriend who was involved (doubt it though --she would have given up such a name in an instant if anyone else could be blamed) and did any of this. But the fact of the matter, is that beyond a reasonable doubt, no once can say what exactly happened. And never will since at this point, even if Casey came out with the truth, if she is even capable of doing so, no one can believe her and it cannot be proven either since the evidence has been destroyed over time. So the jury has to come up with some explanation–but how the heck it can be beyond reasonable doubt, I don’t know. I would give her the maximum sentence possible in terms of child neglect, lying, obstructing justice and every other thing that she is definitely guilty of doing, but I don’t see how murder can be proven.</p>
<p>From the beginning, I felt that Casey was drugging CAylee so she could party …because mom Cindy wasn’t able/willing to babysit as much as before. So, I did/do think that Casey drugged Caylee…and then found her dead. </p>
<p>However, since it is a felony to drug your child, if the drugging causes death, that is still Felony Murder…and still a capital crime.</p>
<p>On the other hand…I can also agree with the theory that Casey had become very jealous of Caylee…and saw Caylee as being a “replacement” for her in her parents’ eyes…Caylee had become the princess who they were showering their money on…while Casey and to lie and steal to get their money spent on her.</p>
<p>I have heard of this drugging toddlers and babies, increasingly lately. Drug them to quiet them on trips. Drug them if they are getting on nerves. Drug them to make babysitting easier. Very scary to me. It never occurred to me with all of my kids to do this. Not even a thought. Didn’t even like giving OTC meds to them when they had colds and the such as any drugs were to be used sparingly. Now I’m hearing tales of Nyquil, Benedryl, OC sleeping pills being used to put kids to sleep. </p>
<p>Given Casey’s history, it would not be inconsistent. But there has to be proof. I don’t think there is any, right now and from the decomposition of the body, there is not going to be. I’d love to google “chloroform” for info, but the way they are going after folks who look up any of these things has me wary. I don’t think that she looked it up on her computer should constitute any evidence when I think of that. I’ve looked up a bunch of stuff that could make for a story.</p>
<p>I think the prosecution is going to have an uphill fight for any murder conviction. I hope that the penalties for what they can nail on her are severe. She is a dangerous person, in my opinion, as she has no morals.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse,
If she killed her accidentally, how would you explain the duct tape? If the child is dead, accidentally or not, why duct tape her mouth and nose?</p>
<p>What do you mean that the police are going after people who look up chloroform and such? How so?</p>
<p>That was what I brought up in an earlier post. She may have been duct taped to keep her quiet should she wake up and to keep her immobile. the other explanation is that it was done after the child died to make it look like a kidnapping/murder. Also there is no evidence that she duct taped the child. What is known for certain, is only that she did not report her daughter missing when she realized it, and has given different stories, some of them proven to be lies, some have to be lies as they contradict other stores of hers about her daughter’s disappearance.</p>
<p>One of the things that point to Casey and that the child was possibly chloroformed was that the police found searches for chloroform information sites on Casey’s computer. I think that using that as any evidence is dicey since many of us, including me, do search for some things out of curiousity and it would be a dangerous precedent to have that allowed as evidence against someone.</p>
<p>I would love to be a fly on the wall in the parents’ home now.</p>
<p>During all this time, they held out that Caylee had been kidnapped and murdered. Now that they hear the defense saying that George found the drowned Caylee in the pool (which George and Cindy know isn’t true), what must they be thinking happened?</p>
<p>Oh, I would not want to know what they are saying. I’m sure they are being torn apart, and have been for a while now. When Cindy Anthony called the police, she had to be ready to break. Can any mother imagine being in that position? I think she knew then that something terrible happened and that Casey was involved. The dad is a former policeman. He has to know that his daughter is guilty, guilty, guilty of foul play. It’s just a matter of exactly what happened. I would have to hang on the scenario that Caylee accidently died and that their daughter was incapable of reporting it and taking any blame for it, and covered it up. That really is the most palatable explanation, and I think I will go with that too, since there is no direct evidence of anything else.</p>
<p>I wonder if a psychiatrist can testify that this young woman is just unable to tell the truth because she is a pathological liar and that no one will ever be able to tell if what she says is true or not. That she is incapable of assuming responsibility for anything that seems distasteful and too much trouble for her, and that finding her child dead was something she could not handle. </p>
<p>Since we’ll never know what happened, we can only guess, and that is not enough for a murder conviction, in my opinion. So get her for what we can pin on her which is horrible enough.</p>
<p>My knowledge on such matters is limited to CSI and other silly TV shows I enjoy…but I thought experts could tell if someone has drown or not. Or was it far too after her death for that kind of physical evidence to still be available? Just curious of someone knows.</p>
<p>I hadn’t really heard anything about this story until last week when it started appearing all over the news. Most people seemed to be so sure Casey was guilty, but I thought there could still be a good chance she was innocent…until I heard the defense’s opening claims. Given the material evidence, the drowning scenario sounds just completely implausible. And if that is a lie, then it makes me think that this was a murder (if it was an accidental death, why not just tell the truth? what are they covering up?) I don’t get it, it just doesn’t make sense to me. I want to know what actually happened, but since Anthony isn’t going to testify, I doubt that story will ever be heard.</p>
<p>My other comment about this case: could Nancy Grace please stop calling her “tot mom”? Has the name Casey Anthony become taboo or something?? Its so ODD and strangely irritating that I have to change the channel (well, “tot mom” and her ridiculous dramatizations).</p>
<p>From what I have heard and seen about what is coming out of the trial, the forensic evidence is just too old and destroyed to be able to reconstruct how Caylee died. The prosecutor is going on "canned air " evidence from the car trunk to show that a decomposed body was in the trunk of a car Casey used. That is even not going well, and even if that can be proven, it does not tell how the little girl died. </p>
<p>The defense is saying that the father was the one who covered up the death and disposed of the body after a pool accident. I think it is more to show that it is indeed possible that someone else was negligent and responsible for the girl’s death. And, it is. Just doesn’t seem likely to me. Dad is an ex policeman, responsible, competent guy in every way of his life except for having a daughter like Casey. The only family member who is a big screw up, know liar, irresponsible, a criminal and a thief is Casey. The type of lives each of them have live involve doing the responsible thing in difficult situations, except Casey. But the crux of the matter is how did Caylee die? Don’t think that part can ever be proven. What can, is that Casey did not report her daughter missing and put off her mother for a while when asked about her. The mom finally called the police because she felt something was wrong and had not seen her grandchild for too long. But everything about Caylee’s life shows that kind of carelessness. Irresponsible, immediate, refusing to deal with matters at hand, disregard for the law and respectability. But actual murder of her daughter is a whole other story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I understand the situation correctly, Caylee’s body was basically just bones by the time they found it. So the only potential causes of death that could be verified by examining the body would be those that affect the bones – like if someone had smashed her skull. But evidently, she didn’t die in a manner that damaged her bones.</p>
<p>Given the condition of her body, I don’t think there’s any way that a medical examiner could distinguish death by drowning from death by drug overdose from death by suffocation with duct tape. But if they had found the body within a few days of death, they probably could have.</p>
<p>Casey, despite all her delusions and ineptness, actually did something “right.” She kept her daughter’s body from being found until a time when the cause of death could no longer be verified. And this might just save her from the death penalty.</p>
<p>Another thought (and this is icky): During decomposition, fluid leaks out of bodies. I wonder whether Casey might have used the duct tape in an attempt to prevent this from happening.</p>
<p>But if she had duct taped her to keep her quiet if she woke up, why would she have duct taped her mouth and nose? I guess I could buy the duct taping after the fact as a cover up but if you wanted it to look like a kidnapping and murder would you leave the decomposing body in the trunk? As far as that goes, I think they have linked bugs found in the trunk of the car to bugs at the site that the body was found so that indicates that flies were on the body in the trunk and transferred to the body site.
</p>
<p>But most of us, regardless of what comprise our internet search histories, don’t have a dead child to explain.</p>
<p>Another thing, when her mom called to report the missing child, it wasn’t simply because she felt that something was wrong, it was, in part, because the car smelled like a dead body was in it. That, combined with the canned air and the bug evidence? How can they dispute that the car held a body. I think they also determined that there was a stain in the trunk consistent with the shape of a child lying in the fetal position.</p>
<p>If my recollection is on target, Ted Bundy’s eventual conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Yet, the evidence, taken in its totality, was convincing and left no reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Anything can happen in a courtroom and the truth and what really happened may surface yet. Has anyone kept a running tab on how much this trial and the associated costs are? Between the police work, experts, legal, etc., etc., this thing has got to be off the charts in the 10’s of millions. Florida’s justice system is flawed but with all the scrutiny with media attention Florida wants to do the trial right. Too many people in Florida get railroaded with court appointed attorneys who don’t do much trial preparation other than glance through defendant’s file on the elevator ride up to courtroom in courthouse; Casey Anthony is being given every opportunity in this trial.</p>
<p>*I enjoy…but I thought experts could tell if someone has drown or not. Or was it far too after her death for that kind of physical evidence to still be available? Just curious of someone knows. *</p>
<p>When all you have is a skeleton, you can’t tell if she drowned. All the soft tissue (lungs, etc) is gone.</p>
<p>If my recollection is on target, Ted Bundy’s eventual conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Yet, the evidence, taken in its totality, was convincing and left no reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>and, he claim that he was innocent (and him mom believed him) all the way up to execution…and then he admitted and revealed where more bodies were.</p>
<p>And…it doesn’t matter if they are never able to prove how/where Caylee died. Scott Peterson is on death row and no one knows how/when/where Laci was killed.</p>
<p>*Another thought (and this is icky): During decomposition, fluid leaks out of bodies. I wonder whether Casey might have used the duct tape in an attempt to prevent this from happening.
*</p>
<p>Very possible…that may be why she backed up into her parents’ garage. She may have gone into the backyard, taped up her dead D’s face to keep the fluids from leaking. who knows???</p>
<p>The jury will never know exactly how this child died, but the story presented will be that the child ultimately died because of the negligence of a parent, one who hid a dead body in her car and did not report the child missing for a month, during which time she partied. Ultimately the jury may feel that this parent bears responsibility, one way or another. Because of this, the jury may very likely find her guilty without the type of forensic evidence that proves she murdered her.</p>
<p>It would be up to the jury. But that would be the flaw in the prosecutions case to get Casey for murder. The fact of the matter is that this young woman has done nothing to put doubt in anyone’s mind that she would do something like this. This latest tactic of “blame Dad” really has fallen flat. The possibility of it doesn’t even stand.</p>
<p>^^^
The problem that the defense is facing is that Casey has never expressed any grief over the loss of Caylee.</p>
<p>A mother - even one who might have been sexually abused - would have been grieving heavily after the accidental death of her D. What mom doesn’t grieve her child’s death…except one who did it on purpose.</p>
<p>Casey is one big problem. But that she is not showing grief typically could be because she mentally ill, and unable to do so. When my friend died, her very dear son, who is on the spectrum upset a lot of people since he was not able to show grief and made some very inappropriate remarks at the funeral. I think it is clear that Casey is off. No conscience. No morals. Has shown no ability to to anything right. Pathological liar. So we have to guess what happened.</p>
<p>I, personally, have a lot of trouble with convictions for things that really cannot be proven. I hold a very high standard for proof of murder or any crime in the court of law. I take the “innocent until proven guilty” very seriously, and feel that the way our justice system works, and I admit it’s out of necessity most of the time, that despite that mantra, ANYONE accused of a crime is treated as though s/he is guilty. So come time for the trial, that prosecuter had better have more than a believable story to get my vote for conviction. If there are other explanations for what happened that give the prosecution’s version of the story a reasonable doubt, than I would not vote guilty. That the defendent is a pathological liar, a career criminal, a drug addict or whatever does not make a difference to me unless there is a distinct and direct pattern of behavior. Casey is despicable and I would have no problem finding her guilty on a number of things. But murder…she has not committed murder or shown that is something she would do. That’s a tough transition to make. Neglect of the child that led to death is about as close as I could get. </p>
<p>And mothers who have killed their children have grieved. Oh they can grieve. Means nothing to me. It’s the whole case and the direct evidence that does.</p>