<p>thanks…wasnt sure which it was…just remember one charge that was a lesser charge</p>
<p>This will be my last post in this thread because the argument is truly becoming circular.</p>
<p>The difference here, is that I am focusing on the evidence during the fact. I am looking for evidence to suggest she did in fact kill her daughter. Not before, not after, but during.</p>
<p>The only thing her “behaviors” after the fact show is that she repeatedly lied to the Police about what happened to Caylee. That is the only thing you can possibly infer from that if you use dispassionate rational logic. That is it. And she was convicted for lying the investigators.</p>
<p>What you’re doing right now is speculating wildly on what they actually mean. </p>
<p>Be my guest and ask anybody with an actual background in psychology/psychiatry, they will back me up. Her behaviors cannot be used as evidence that she in fact may have killed her daughter.</p>
<p>So lets call a spade a spade. I have read this entire thread a few times, and the people now coming up with this “behavior” theory, had already came to the conclusion that she was guilty way before the trial even ended. So now, faced with the fact that they were dead (pardon the pun) wrong, they are trying fairly desperately to concoct a wild speculative theory in order to justify themselves.</p>
<p>You were wrong. Admit this and move on. Twelve jurors with no connection to each other found her not guilty. In 11hrs!!! They had all the facts of the case at the tip of their fingers, while you did not. And yet, here we are. It’s kind of amazing really. People just can’t seem to let go of their innate bias’.</p>
<p>jsanche,</p>
<p>Speaking for myself (and I imagine a number of others), I am not saying that Casey’s behaviors after the child’s disappearnce indicate she murdered her daughter. I, and many others, commented that these were odd behaviors. They are not proof in themselves of guilt. I haven’t seen people say that that proves guilt. THey are part of a bigger picture. Also, simply people are commenting on her behaviors in and of themselves and not in relation to the legal finding of guilt or innocence. </p>
<p>Further, many are recognizing that the jury found her not guilty of the charges of murder and manslaughter and were unable to find her guilty without a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>The fact the many have doubts about Casey’s innocence of wrongdoing in the death of her child doesn’t diminish the jury or anything else. These doubts are well founded. The whole case involved doubts in both directions. Even some jurors are stating they think Casey was involved in some capacity in her child’s death but they could not find her guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented in court. In fact, even Casey ADMITS to being involved in her daughter’s accidental death and covering it up as a murder. That we DO know (if you want to believe her story). Even her behaviors as presented by her lawyer of making an accident appear as a murder, improperly disposing of her body, not reporting the child’s death, and lying about the circumstances afterward are considered wrongdoing. People are commenting about those facts as presented in court. One can doubt the prosecutors’ story but also doubt the defense lawyer’s story. Lots of doubt to go around in this case. People are commenting about these things. Nobody is saying that Casey’s behaviors during the 31 days in and of themselvs are proof of guilt in terms of murder. But you cannot claim that these possibilities do NOT exist and are NOT plausible, yet unproven, just like the defense’s case may be plausible to you but was unproven. The jury did not find Casey guilty of murder as they could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense’s story also cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People are entitled, rightfully so, to consider the plausible possibilities in this case in either direction as neither side proved what happened. Nobody knows. The fact that Casey was found not guilty of murder by a jury doesn’t PROVE what actually happened with Caylee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So wrong Grasshopper. If her behavior were not probative on the issue of culpability, it would not have been admitted into evidence. It is so well accepted that behavior before and after the alleged act is probative that there is no serious objection to it. If it could not be used or was overly prejudicial, the jury would have never seen it. They can consider any way they like, but it is evidence.</p>
<p>cartera, I agree with your post 1565 that these behaviors were allowed in as evidence.</p>
<p>But who is Grasshopper?</p>
<p>^^^^^
lol</p>
<p>Kung Fu…grasshopper…novice…learner…</p>
<p>Ah, learn something new every day…CC is very educational!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think You Tube links are allowed now - if not, my apologies and it will be deleted. </p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Kung Fu - grasshopper dialog](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo)</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>All of it suggests a consciousness of guilt…</p>
<p>1) not reporting the death/disappearance</p>
<p>2) disappearing from the family home (flight)</p>
<p>3) partying after the death - and NOT telling ANYONE that her child was dead. A person here has said that he drank a lot after his child died, but he didn’t keep it a secret from everyone that his child had died. He didn’t quietly keep his child’s body in a trunk and then throw it away.</p>
<p>4) lying to cops</p>
<p>5) the disrespectful treatment of the body…throwing it away in the woods.</p>
<p>In its entirety, it speaks to the consiousness of guilt.</p>
<p>and, this stuff would not have been allowed into the trial if it wasn’t considered evidence in the legal system.</p>
<p>Thanks Cartera…as you can see, I have never seen a Kung Fu movie (not my thing!), but after someone else explained “grasshopper,” I looked it up in an Urban Dictionary and voila, I got it! (or “by George, I’ve got it!”…nah, too close to the Anthony case!)</p>
<p>PS…ya know, with all the notoriety of the Anthony case, I imagine some urban slang terms will be developed. Any predictions?</p>
<p>Here are some to get started…</p>
<p>“You’ve been duct taped!” (silenced)
“Don’t pull a Casey!” (don’t lie)</p>
<p>(Like “OJ” became slang for certain meanings after that case)</p>
<p>Certain terms will always be identified with high profile cases. For example, from the OJ case, there is “if the gloves don’t fit, you must acquit.” I remember when my older D was writing the “Why X college” essays for admissions and I recall a line in the essays of “X college fits me like a glove” (she went on to say specifically how that school fit). And all I could think of was “if the school fits, you must admit!” :D</p>
<p>I find it odd that people think that just because Casey didn’t have a (known) prior history of child abuse that she couldn’t have intentionally or even accidentally drugged her kid which resulted in her death.</p>
<p>Susan Smith was well-known as being a devoted, loving, and perfect mom…up until she let them drown in her car in a lake. Her own H could not believe that his wife, a perfect mom, would do that to her kids.</p>
<p>I guess those who think there wasn’t any evidence that Casey was criminally responsible for her death must think that she only should have been charged with “lying to police”.</p>
<p>The problem with this discussion is that people are saying “I believe she was guilty, so therefore I cannot understand how a jury could find her innocent”. The answer is in a trial, belief means nothing, it is about evidence, and jurors are specifically told that they are to determine whether the prosecution by weight of evidence has proven the case with the evidence, not whether they believe the person was guilty, there is a big difference. Why? Because a juror can believe someone is guilty based on nothing more then bias, they could look at someone who is a different race then themselves and basically believe “oh, it is one of them, must be guilty”. People could believe it because of her behavior after the girl was dead, but that is not weighing evidence, that is using gut feeling, and jurors are not supposed to do that. </p>
<p>A lot of people have pointed to Casey’s behavior after the child’s death as proof that she killed the child, and someone commented that they allowed evidence of her behavior into the trial. However, what they leave out is why that was let in, it wasn’t proof that she did it, it was supporting evidence for the prosecution contention that Casey killed the child because she wanted to party, and the seeming lack of grief to them supported the idea that she had motive to kill the child…but it had nothing to do with the main contention, that she killed the child, it just said she would have had motive to do so (in the prosecutions eyes), it is not direct proof of anything other then motive (remember MM’s and O’s? Means, motive and opportunity?). And the problem with that as proof of anything is that the prosecution has no way of knowing why Casey didn’t show what they considered appropriate behavior, and more importantly, they couldn’t argue that people hit with something like the death could do crazy things without being the killer. I knew someone whose father died, and they couldn’t deal with it, and the day of the father’s funeral went to a ball game and then was out partying, might not seem to be grieving behavior, but it was how they dealt with it…the point being, there are other explanations for her behavior that could lend doubt to the prosecutions claim she wanted to do away with her daughter (on the other hand, if they had a statement from someone where Casey said “I am so tired of the little rat, wish I could drown her” that would have been real evidence). Arguing that her behavior showed she hated the daughter is supposition that might fit her behavior, but has no backing proof. </p>
<p>“The defense’s story also cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is true, but it is also irrelevant in the sense that the defense’s story doesn’t need to be proven to that level, since in a criminal trial the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case; while not being able to totally prove the defense’s story, the fact that it cannot be proven beyond a doubt doesn’t make the defendant guilty, it means as an argument against the prosecutions case it held less weight then it otherwise might if it could be proven (for example, an alibi that cannot be proven doesn’t make a strong case they didn’t do it, but it also doesn’t mean they should be found guilty, either).</p>
<p>If you look at the prosecutions case, they have several major pieces missing. The biggest problem? The ME could not determine how the child died, there is literally no evidence that says she was murdered in the first place, and that alone places severe doubt on the prosecutions case from a legal standpoint, they also don’t have any physical evidence that Casey in fact was chloroformed. There is evidence Casey looked up how to make chloroform and they smelled chloroform in the car, which does seem to back up the DA’s case, but they have no evidence saying the chloroform was used to kill Casey (yes, we can ask the question, if not used to knock out the child, what the heck was she using it for, but that only goes do far).</p>
<p>Again, in a criminal trial the prosecution needs evidence that directly ties the mother to the crime. The fact that they don’t even have physical evidence that the girl died from an act of willful murder, that the ME couldn’t tell what killed her, casts legal doubt on whether she was killed and without that evidence, the child being killed is basically equal to the defense story she drowned, both sides have doubt in them, and if that is the case, the prosecution suffers more because of the burden rule.</p>
<p>People also talk about 1 stupid person on a jury might believe anything, but in this case, 12 jurors agreed to acquit based on doubt of the prosecutions case, that weighing int he doubts about Casey’s story didn’t add enough credence to the prosecutions case to allow them to convict. Also, an alternate, who couldn’t have been swayed, who never deliberated, agreed with the other 12 who did deliberate, which tells you this isn’t some case of some ‘stupid’ juror convincing the others, it seems like 13 people heard the evidence in the courtroom, heard the judges instructions and decided the prosecution didn’t prove their case beyond what they felt was a reasonable doubt. It is very easy as an outsider to question their verdict, it is very easy to say “geez, the defense’s story is ridiculous, the mother behaved like someone who didn’t care for her kid, so she must have done it” and to be the one who listened to the evidence, saw the cross ex, saw points made and discussed, saw the demeanor of people on the stand, heard the evidence, and came to a conclusion, they are working from a different angle. </p>
<p>People often bring up the Simpson verdict, and quite frankly, like this case, the prosecution screwed up, the defense had a brilliant defense team who knew how to manipulate jurors, who knew how to deflate prosecutions claims,and more importantly, take advantage of juror’s lack of knowldege of DNA (have Scheck as a lawyer helped, he probably knew how little many people know; several of the OJ jurors thought that DNA was the same as blood type,anbd said “millions of people could have the same DNA as OJ”). In this case, I happen to think the jury had much more to work with, with the OJ case there was no doubt the two people were killed, and there was physical evidence tying Simpson to the scene, but the defense outfoxed the prosection; in this case, the prosecution couldn’t make up for the lack of evidence tying the mom to the death and also if the girl had been killed at all. </p>
<p>"People are entitled, rightfully so, to consider the plausible possibilities in this case in either direction as neither side proved what happened. Nobody knows. The fact that Casey was found not guilty of murder by a jury doesn’t PROVE what actually happened with Caylee. "</p>
<p>Nicely put, I concur entirely. People think this means that Casey was innocent, which isn’t true, it simply means that there wasn’t a good case to tie her to the murder, or rather, that there even was a murder (just because cops claim it was murder doesn’t mean it was proven), the Jury didn’t need to believe that Casey killed her daughter, they had to take it on faith, based on shaky circumstantial evidence like the Chloroform, that the girl in fact was killed. People have to remember that the defense doesn’t have to prove anything, everything they do is to shed doubt on the prosecutions case, whereas the prosecution has to prove their case, the way some in these posts have talked, they are in effect saying that the defense has no means to prove their story so therefor Casey must be guilty of murder and it doesn’t work like that.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it is likely that Casey killed her girl (or had someone kill her), but there simply wasn’t enough proof from a legal standpoint to make that case. Plus keep something else in mind, it is likely Casey will never get away from this case, if she did it I suspect that guilt will haunt her, and more importantly, she will face life with people believing she got away with murder and it will haunt her if she is in fact guilty, and in this day and age it isn’t that easy to run away from notoriety.</p>
<p>while i think casey was involved…i have also stated that i understood why the jury came in with the verdict they did</p>
<p>"I guess those who think there wasn’t any evidence that Casey was criminally responsible for her death must think that she only should have been charged with “lying to police”. "</p>
<p>The problem is there wasn’t any direct physical evidence she was criminally responsible for her death,it was all supposition and circumstantial, the ME couldn’t even say definitively how the child died and also couldn’t prove that there were drugs (including chloroform) in the child’s body. The prosecutions case ipso facto in terms of the kid being drugged was “we found her body with duct tape on it, we found evidence of interest in chloroform and of finding traces of it, so the mother must have doped her and suffocated her with tape” Only problem is they don’t have that final piece, that Casey was suffocated and had been drugged, they have no physical evidence of that. If they had, it would have been a slam dunk; as it was, the prosecution case was a supposition based on circumstantial evidence and the Jury didn’t find that enough, they couldn’t jump that gap without more evidence. </p>
<p>In fact, the only thing they could prove was lying to the police, they had her on that cold and the jury found her guilty of that. “Obvious” is not the same thing as legally proven beyond a doubt, to lots of people things that are obvious to one group (for example, that the Catholic Church all the way up the chain was guilty of criminal activity with priestly abuse, to some that is ‘fact’, to many defenders of the church it is ‘supposition without proof’…and it is unknown in a court of law what would happen, since the church leaders cannot be put on trial to see)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ditto…I feel the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>musicprnt, since you quoted me…yes, I KNOW the defense doesn’t have to prove their story as the burden is on the prosecution to prove THEIR story! My statement was in a context of a response to jsanche, that just because the jury found Casey not guilty and could not determine proof of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, did not then mean that the defense’s story is true either. No, they didn’t have to prove their story! I was trying to explain to jsanche who thinks Casey is innocent of all wrongdoing in Caylee’s death, that while she is not guilty in a court of law, there still remains a distinct possibility that in reality she was involved in the child’s death. Neither side’s story has been proven, even though Casey was found not guilty of the charges.</p>
<p>The most common question I heard BEFORE the trial was: What is taking so long?</p>
<p>The trial answered the question. The prosecutor believed (as I do ) that she had a criminal involvement in the child’s death. And in 3 LONG YEARS they could not come up with sufficient proof. Yet they pursued a death penalty despite such. </p>
<p>A pox on the defense for bringing up an allegation of sex abuse by her father AND brother. Any CC user knows that a significant portion of woman think it their duty to presume any such allegations to be TRUE. I hope this was not her “FREE CARD”. </p>
<p>A DOUBLE POX on the legal system for allowing an out of control prosecutor trying to use the legal system execute someone only in order to further his reputation. (Notice we have not heard from him since?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? He has been everywhere, talking to everyone.</p>