<p>If you (whomever keeps bringing this silly argument up) are going to try an argue logically then follow through to the logical end.</p>
<p>A) No one is saying she is innocent.</p>
<p>B) We ARE saying that since no one KNOWS (you don’t, I don’t) any determination you or I make is merely a subjective judgment. So while she COULD be NOT INNOCENT, you will never know.</p>
<p>C) Essentially we could say she is de facto innocent. You can’t really argue otherwise. You don’t know for sure…</p>
<p>There could be aliens but until you have proof of them believing in them is unreasonable and illogical. Your desire to maintain her non-innocence is illogical and unreasonable.</p>
<p>Your best and ONLY logical position is to assert that she could be NOT innocent. </p>
<p>None of us are asserting her innocence. We are asserting that you can’t prove her lack of innocence and that any attempt to do so is false and contrived. Which is the only correct argument.</p>
<p>First, the scenario I was addressing was what could account for Casey not coming forward early in this to avoid sitting in jail for nearly 3 years. Mine was an imaginary conversation between her and a lawyer that would give a basis for her not doing so upon advice of counsel. Her story could not be proven unless George/Cindy confirmed it and imo would not have gotten her out of jail at that time because the prosecution would have totally discounted it as “family lying.”</p>
<p>Second, all attorneys know of and experience clients who aren’t telling the truth, aren’t telling the whole truth and most importantly to me are, at best, telling the truth as they perceive it. </p>
<p>You investigate what your own client tells you as best you can. Most of what my scenario postulates would involve a swearing match between Casey and her parents. I happen to know that several of the CC posters who have mentioned that Casey’s conduct is consistent with that of a victim of abuse are in the mental health field. That is something the defense lawyer probably would have checked. </p>
<p>Several CC posters and at least some who heard the testimony as jurors “don’t believe a word George says.” Also, it appears that Cindy probably lied on the stand. When this occurs you accept your client’s version, keeping an open mind on “the truth” as the investigation unfolds. It is not corrrect that every liar is a murderer any more that every murderer is a liar on all subjects.</p>
<p>I now will ask you: what part of “her story” as I have dreamed up doesn’t “hold up?”</p>
<p>BTW-- Full disclosure-- the google searches bother me the most. The CC’s poster’s explanation that the same chemical properties would have been present in the trunk from chlorine in the pool and from chloroform if scientifically accurate would even push this into “reasonable doubt” for me.</p>
<p>Actually, some people on this thread are claiming Casey Anthony to be innocent.</p>
<p>I think many of us are saying we don’t know if she is guilty or innocent. A court found her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She may be guilty or she may be innocent in reality/factually. Just like some can’t claim she is guilty, likewise others should not claim she is innocent. In a court of law, she was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody knows 100% if she if she accidentally or purposefully killed her child. Then again, she does admit to an accidental death and a cover up of it. Nobody can assert for sure that Casey is innocent, nor can claim for sure that she is guilty in terms of the facts (not the legal case).</p>
<p>07 dad, there was an issue about the google searches…the prosecution witness first said there were 84 searches related to choloform… turned out there was one as shown by the defense team…following myspace searches…supposedly casey’s boyfriend posted something about chloroform and she then searched it. of course that is yet another version vs cindy and chlorophyll…but the defense did have some evidence to support the myspace version… outside the jury baez also asked the judge if the jury could be informed of that error. i think there was probably enough evidence on that to leave a question…and i personally dont think casey would break caylee’s neck to kill her…i wondered if she searched that about her parents.</p>
<p>Agreed! Of course the fact that Casey is a liar, doesn’t mean she murdered her kid. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point was that because Casey is a compulsive liar, I would not believe any story she told unless there was evidence to prove it. She is not credible. While there are various possibilities if what happened to her daughter, the last place I’d look for the truth would be from Casey’s mouth. And I don’t happen to believe the pool/George story. I do think it is possible that the tot died accidentally due to something Casey may have done and she may not have intended the child to die, though I also think it is possible she did intend for the child to die. But in any case, it doesn’t matter to me what plausible story you might create, because it is just a story with no basis. There are many plausible stories one could create. Even Casey makes up stories!</p>
<p>Deciding whether sentences are served concurrently or consecutively is within the discretion of the judge. It is very difficult to overturn these decisions. Judge Perry decided that Casey’s 4 misdemeanor charges should run consecutively. In many cases, the decision would have likely been concurrent. However, the judge is able to consider the circumstances of the bad acts in his decision. Judge Stricklan, in the prior felony cases, decided that the sentences should run concurrently and she was given time served. </p>
<p>The legal determination is whether the actions occurred within the same criminal episode. The time period may be relevant but is not dispositive. Casey’s defense team made this argument in its double jeopardy argument after sentencing.</p>
<p>They are as wrong as those that assume her guilt. I find mostly though that people keep referring to Jsanche’s or my posts. We clearly don’t assert her innocence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor outside of the legal case. Assuming she didn’t kill her and assuming her daughters death was an accidental drowning then technically she is still innocent by definition. ;)</p>
<p>xSlacker…what do you mean “assuming??” Assuming is not the same as being 100% sure. You can assume she is innocent (or guilty) all you want. None of us KNOWS she is one or the other. I am not talking of a legal finding but rather of reality/factually.</p>
<p>And yes, indeed, some people on this thread have claimed Anthony to be innocent.</p>
<p>Most sentences are concurrent sentences. This includes sentences imposed by judges and those agreed to by the State and defense through plea negotiations. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, the charges are particularly heinous, or the defendant has a substantial criminal record, chances are that the Court will not impose consecutive sentences.</p>
<p>The tradition in this country is that consecutive sentences are usually given for heinous crimes and cannot be given to “get” a criminal that they could not otherwise get.</p>
<p>Consecutive sentences are rare in “non-heinous” crimes. Due to the rarity of this event, it could and would be argued that consecutive sentences over what she has served are cruel and unusual and based on prior precedents the defense would win.</p>
<p>When I put “assuming” I was stating a hypothetical premise. </p>
<p>Basically. Given (or assuming) A and then given (assuming) B…</p>
<p>I personally am not assuming. I’m merely pointing out that if she didn’t murder her and it WAS an accident she would still be innocent.</p>
<p>You mentioned that she admitted to the drowning death implying that said death would erase her innocence (at least I took that to be your implication). In the above example she would be innocent still.</p>
<p>It was an example. Not MY assumption.</p>
<p>My assumption is that she’s probably as guilty as I assume OJ was. But I’m not ready to lynch her on a hunch. Karma is a ***** an whatnot… ;)</p>
<p>Plus read my posts. Your argument there is basically my argument. That no one can possibly know. Except I add the proviso that since no one can possibly know the only moral and justifiable and proper stance is to treat her as if she is innocent until something (besides feelings) proves otherwise.</p>
<p>Given that we presume her innocent and given that nothing factually disproves that the only logical position to take is that she is innocent. </p>
<p>Note I said “position to take is that she is innocent” and not that “she is innocent.” In other words, acting or treating her as if she is NOT innocent is morally reprehensible and illogical. ;)</p>
<p>She cannot plead the 5th in the civil case because there is no longer any threat of criminal charges arising from the testimony. Double jeopardy prevents that. That is why OJ couldn’t invoke the 4th in his civil trial. She could be held in contempt but she will go to jail. She could not show and there would be a default judgment - not a summary judgment. A summary judgment is different.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what all this discussion about innocence. Whether a person committed the crime or not in actuality has no bearing on innocence under the law. There is no categories for “not guilty” and “innocent”. If you are tried for a crime, you are considered innocent until proven guilty and Casey Anthony was not proven guilty. </p>
<p>Now whether she is actually guilty or innocent of what remains unknown. Certainly can’t believe anything she says. One thing the court did pinpoint is that she is a liar. Officially a liar. Guilty of lying multiple times. So we’ll never know what happened since I suspect Casey is the only one who knows and nothing that she says is believable, reliable. </p>
<p>I am still in disbelief that the jury did not find her guilty of child abuse or some other issues more serious than lying and less final than the death penalty. That idiot show casing DA just had to go for the big prize, the DP, and by focusing too much on that, he did not push the options enough, is my guess, so the defense’s last words that all she was guilty of doing was lying hit home hard. </p>
<p>I don’t think her release is going to serve anyone well including herself, especially her parents. Keeping her locked up for a good 20 years would have been a better solution. To have her put to death, I could not agree even though I am not against the DP. I believe the evidence has to be very direct and not circumstantial for DP cases.</p>
<p>Personally, I think she drugged up her daughter and left her in a hot car or overdosed her and found the child dead and disposed of the body. I cannot see any reasonable other scenario, and though it is possible she intended to kill her when she did this, there is no way to determine that intent for anyone, and in her case there is that distinct possibility that there was not that intent. </p>
<p>But 12 jurors who sat through hours of that presentation thought differently.</p>
<p>Correct, but only because I forgot she didn’t testify. She can’t place herself in danger of perjury charges (which CAN be brought after a not guilty verdict) which is why no one ever gets found not guilty and runs on tv and says they did it. Even OJ wrote a book called “If I did it.” ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Florida has limits on the jail time. Depends on her will power.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. My mistake. Default.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even this is iffy. There are TWO morals to the story of the boy who cried wold. One is obviously don’t lie. The other is that liars don’t always lie and you can’t assume they are lying…</p>
<p>As far as a civil case goes, she will probably just lie and tell the best story to fit the case. Most likely the name just popped into her head so she used it. Casey doesn’t seem to think too deeply. I have no doubt she intended to harm anyone’ s reputation with using that woman’s name.</p>
<p>I don’t think I am being nitpicky - this is not accurate:
The jury could not find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore they found her not guilty (period). The phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to finding a guilty verdict.</p>
<p>I have much more doubt now than I did previously. I confess I got swept up in the Nancy Grace Tot-mom is a murderer frenzy. There certainly was bizarre behavior after Caylee disappeared, but was there documented child abuse before Caylee disappeared? I don’t believe the drowning story, nor do I believe the sexual abuse allegations, but I now am not convinced that Casey with intent murdered her child. Her bizarre behavior - practically celebrating her new-found freedom - not only does it not make her guilty of murder in a court of law, but I actually think she is such a strange bird I no longer think it necessarily indicates she murdered her child.</p>
<p>njres… that was what i was saying about the oj case too… if you only watched the nancy grace type stuff it was like a totally different trial was going on. i guess its not sensational or good for ratings to have a show that presents just facts with no opinion…but those shows are becoming more and more just the opinions of the commentators (says me while hln is on in the background LOL)</p>
<p>“Personally, I think she drugged up her daughter and left her in a hot car or overdosed her and found the child dead and disposed of the body. I cannot see any reasonable other scenario, and though it is possible she intended to kill her when she did this, there is no way to determine that intent for anyone, and in her case there is that distinct possibility that there was not that intent.”
I’m with the Captain on this conclusion (not that I am saying there is sufficient evidence, just my personal opinion). As I recall, she had identified her nanny as “Zanny” at least a month or two before Caylee disappeared. Calling the nanny “Zanny” sounds to me like her “nanny” was Xanax and that was what she used to keep Caylee quiet while she went out. Accidental overdose seems logical.</p>
She can’t place herself in danger of perjury charges (which CAN be brought after a not guilty verdict) which is why no one ever gets found not guilty and runs on tv and says they did it. Even OJ wrote a book called “If I did it.” ;)</p>