<p>Wonder where Casey is going to live? If she doen’t have probation she could go anywhere. She probably should go way away from all the hooplah…wherever that might be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t someone in her family in Houston say she could live with them???</p>
<p>Honestly, the repeated references to CPS make me laugh.</p>
<p>Here in Florida they are called DCF (Dept. of Children & Families) and they have a LONG history of not taking action when they should. </p>
<p>Rilya Wilson- DCF was called out to the home and did nothing. This foster child disappeared and hasn’t been seen since.</p>
<p>Barahona Twins in Miami- Adoptive twins being openly abused (living in a middle-class neighborhood) Repeated calls from neighbors were ignored by DCF. One twin was murdered by the “father” last winter and he rode around with her in the back of his pickup while the other twin sat in the front seat saturated in pesticide and/or other chemicals. He went to ICU and survived.</p>
<p>My own experience as a teacher- Child comes to school with a bright red welt across her face. She admitted to me that her father beat her with a belt and that’s just one of the places she is hit. She is hurting all over. DCF was called and the family was investigated. Finding: This was an UNFOUNDED claim of abuse. No- they didn’t say we will work on these parents’ parenting skills, or “Hey- we will monitor this family.” No- it was UNFOUNDED.</p>
<p>Really- I could look up more cases on the internet in the past 20 years where DCF has botched things up and has been “reorganized” and the head of the department has “resigned.” I think you get the picture.</p>
<p>A trollop mom partying her brains out would not alarm anyone at DCF, trust me.</p>
<p>Casey at her sentencing hearing the other day struck me as resembling and looking like Iggy Pop when he was in his 20’s. In a couple of years I’d bet hard partying Casey will look like Iggy does today in his 60’s!</p>
<p>m2kc, Casey Anthony’s partying while her daughter was missing is proof – beyond ANY doubt – that she is a horrible person. No one disputees that. But I fail to understand how it is evidence of murder.</p>
<p>Lying, lack of grieving, and her behavior after the death are all things to be considered and are therefore evidence. The jury is not to consider anything that is not evidence. It is circumstantial evidence in that the jury draws inferences from those things. It is okay for the jury to think “what a person would do in this situation” using their own life experiences. Since there are 12 of them, no one person’s life experiences is supposed to rule. </p>
<p>Other evidence that gives the above evidence more meaning is that Caylee died under suspicious circumstances, there was an effort to conceal her body (conceal evidence), duct tape on Caylee’s body, etc. Add in that she was last seen with Casey, she was found wearing items and with items that came from Casey’s home, the abandoning of the car, the odor in the car, Casey backing the car up to the garage and dumpster, Casey borrowing a shovel from a neighbor, etc. etc.</p>
<p>All of those paint a picture. Some people see the picture more clearly than others. The defense tries to take out pieces and suggest other pieces. This, too, is supposed to be done with evidence. This jury was open to also using sheer speculation (that George was involved for example.)</p>
<p>^^^^
Exactly, exactly, exactly. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I really think that the jurors were vulnerable to the red herrings that were thrown at them without any substantiating facts.</p>
<p>This will sound really bad but…does anyone think that maybe Caylee was spared from living a horrible life? Right now all we see is the adorable baby but let her live a few more years with Casey (and possible psycho grandparents) and you end up with a miserable kid. Maybe she was spared this horrid future. I’m not saying that what happened isn’t terrible but maybe Caylee is better off…</p>
<p>limabeans…I don’t really agree. I don’t think Caylee is better off dead. Many kids survive less than optimal parenting. From all I could observe from reports, this child had loving and doting grandparents (despite their other faults) who were very involved in her life (who knows how long that would have continued but on their end, they would have wanted that), and while Casey wasn’t a great mom, it didn’t seem like she was abusing her daughter (up until this horrific incident however it came about). Casey may have matured and gotten a job or maybe even married and the child would have been in school and so on. I think Caylee would have had a chance at a decent life. Every child deserves that chance. Many kids grow up in less than ideal situations and survive and make it in this world.</p>
<p>PS, based on accounts, I don’t think Caylee was leading a “horrible life” up until the period when Casey moved out and Caylee was missing/dead.</p>
<p>One more thing…as far as “miserable kids” go…I believe there are some kids who are happy even though they live in some bad family situations and there are some kids who are miserable who have been given very loving homes and all the good things in life.</p>
<p>Circumstantial evidence is just as valid as direct evidence, sometines better. Just depends. This jury decided and chose what would be inference, chose defense speculation as more credible and threw out what others may not. Sounds as though they were waiting for that CSI moment that only comes on CSI and not in real life court drama.
As Alan Dershowitz said, there was enough evidence to convict as there was to have doubt.
I would love to know with the 6/6 split manslaughter, what changed those jurors mind.</p>
<p>Lack of grieving is now evidence that you could have potentially committed a murder.</p>
<p>How do you come up with these bizarro conclusions?</p>
<p>What we have here is a very insular thinking pack of people trying to project what they would do onto the entire population. In a lot of cultures/regions etc… people don’t break down and cry when something like this happens. They remain stoic and solemn.</p>
<p>So I guess, using your logic, they are guilty.</p>
<p>Did you lot not learn anything from the Duke Lacrosse Case?</p>
<p>In a weird sort of way i almost feel it worked to Casey’s benefit that she was such a completely over the top pathological and manipulative liar. People may have thought she was so off that any reaction at all, including covering up an accident to look like murder could be par for the course with her. But I think it’s that creep George who really sunk the prosecution’s case, especially the testimony by the woman helping the search effort with whom he had the affair. She said he told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control. Nonetheless, I think it easily could have gone a different way with another jury.</p>
<p>What boggles my mind though is that not reporting a death of a child or a missing child is not a felony in and of itself, something that many are now trying to change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are engaging in simplistic thinking. Considering each element in a vacuum will not lead to an informed, logical or rational decision. For the legal system to work at its best, jurors need to employ critical thinking skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an example of not being able to unring a bell. The jury was instructed that this testimony could not be considered as evidence that an accident happened. There was no evidence of an accident.</p>
<p>roshke, what boggles the mind is the NEED for such a law.</p>
<p>Cartera,
Again…exactly!</p>
<p>If I don’t grieve for someone, it is not evidence that I murdered that person.</p>
<p>But if I don’t grieve for my child and my child’s body is found in very suspicious circumstances and those circumstances suggest that there was foul play… if my car trunk shows evidence that a dead body had occupied it and I have been caught in several lies concerning the whereabouts of my daughter…if my car trunk also showed evidence of chloroform and my internet search history showed that I visited, nearly 100 times, sites instructing me how to make chloroform…if this history also indicated that I visited sites about violent death and strangulation…well, not grieving for my child becomes evidence.</p>
<p>parent56, that is exactly why it is acceptable to consider the fact that someone didn’t report as evidence of guilt. No one has ever heard of such a thing. No one has ever heard of a loving family member witnessing an accidental death, not calling 911, wrapping the accident victim in a garbage bag, dumping them and then lying for over a month about the death and the location of the body. </p>
<p>If you ask 100 people why someone would dump a body in a swampy area, how many of them will say, “to cover up an accidental drowning of course.” </p>
<p>Instead, I would say that all 100 of them would say that someone was trying to cover up a crime by hiding evidence in hopes it would not be found until there was little left to examine.</p>
<p>jsanche, it is like going around in circles. It is not simply that she didn’t grieve for her child. It is about many factors in combination. She didn’t act stressed or different in any way, shape, or form after supposedly discovering an awful accident. No shock or anxiety after having to cover it up (supposedly). Even if she felt no grief for her own child, she might feel a little unsettled about the shock of the events and nervous about carrying out the cover up, even if for a day. But again, that in itself is not an indicator of guilt but it is very odd and part of a bigger picture. </p>
<p>If anything, it almost points to an intentional death as she wasn’t grieving (she wanted it) and she wasn’t in shock at finding out an accident as it was preplanned.</p>
<p>As far as what George told the supposed “mistress,” and that is just alleged and simply heresy, I don’t find it far fetched at all to use terminology of “it was an accident that snowballed out of control,” because it doesn’t mean HE was involved but he could have said that very thing in referring to his own daughter and wanting to believe she was involved in an ACCIDENTAL death that got out of control, rather than to fathom she could have murdered her own child intentionally (and she really may have only accidentally killed the child and not have meant to kill her). If he was referring to his daughter and the circumstances and even though he had NO direct knowledge of what had happened to the grandchild, he still could have easily commented that he believed it had to be some sort of accident that got out of control…he shared an inference, in other words and it doesn’t imply that he had DIRECT knowledge that it was an accident. I would not have made such a conclusion based on that statement alone (not to mention it was heresy).</p>
<p>cartera…i’m in the camp that feels she is involved…probably drug like xanax, and accidently killed her…manslaughter with negligence…freaked out and SHE threw the baby in the swamp. i dont particularly like george or cindy but dont think they were involved. I dont think she used chloroform or intended to kill her… but once she did i dont think she particularly cared…just didnt want to get caught</p>
<p>Drugging with xanax would be aggravated child abuse and/or aggravated manslaughter.</p>