<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure who you’re referring to, but Casey wasn’t missing. Cindy was in contact with her daughter throughout the month asking to see Caylee, but Casey always had an excuse - a job in Tampa, mini-vacations, with the nanny, etc. George seemed to suggest that Casey was missing when he went to get the car, but she was in contact with them, was with friends, moved in with her boyfriend and was out on the town.</p>
<p>In those 31 days, would the Anthonys necessarily think Caylee was dead or would they think Casey was messing with them? I don’t think I’d let myself think the former.</p>
<p>zoosermom, agreed. The parents were frustrated that Casey was not staying in touch for a while and that they had no access to Caylee. I highly doubt they suspected that their grandchild was dead or missing. The child’s mother merely kept giving excuses. After a while, they suspected something wasn’t quite right but I doubt they suspected the child was dead or missing. Casey was an adult and wasn’t obligated to be at home or visit with the grandchild and if she was in arguments with her parents and went off for a while and was in touch by phone, the parents had no reason to suspect any foul play or a truly missing toddler.</p>
<p>I think they were starting to worry, but I think it all came together for them when they smelled the car. Cindy told police it smelled like something died in the car. She told co-workers it smelled that way. She also was concerned that Caylee’s doll was found in Caylee’s car seat, that the doll smelled the same way and that she had tried to clean the doll with Clorox and had sprayed Febeeze on it and in the car.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See–reasonable doubt. One poster notes that Caylee wasn’t missing but another poster notes that George was referririg to her as missing. Why would he do that if he believed she was not missing?</p>
<p>One poster who thinks Casey did it looks at the George-Caylee relationship as so close he would commit suicide over grief, not because he was responsible for her death. Another poster who thinks Casey did it says there is nothing out of the ordinary about George waiting 31 days to report a concern about Caylee since Casey was her mother and said she had her and gave some reason why they grandparents couldn’t see her. No biggie, just a mother and her child out on there own.</p>
<p>A third view is that George was acting and he couldn’t control Cindy and she ultimately called 911. The indication that George referred to Caylee as “missing” at about the time of the car is interesting. I thought he was being assured that Caylee was with Casey or the Nanny?</p>
<p>*Then why did Daddy George wait 31 days to report “his” daughter missing? *</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Casey was NEVER missing. And as far as they knew, Caylee was WITH Casey (who wasn’t missing!)</p>
<p>*would the Anthonys necessarily think Caylee was dead or would they think Casey was messing with them? *</p>
<p>From early reports, it appeared that the Ants thought that Casey was messing with them a bit because Cindy had chewed Casey out for stealing money from the older grandpa’s acct.</p>
<p>Assume for minute that both Cindy Anthony and George Anthony are lying, and NOTHING they said can be considered as evidence. (That’s essentially what the jury did, because they did not find either of them to be credible witnesses.)</p>
<p>What evidence is there, then, that Casey killed Caylee, and that she did so deliberately? </p>
<p>Evidence suggesting that Casey knew that Caylee was dead and actively concealed that fact does not mean that Casey is the person who killed Caylee. Her lawyer suggested that Caylee died accidentally but that George told her that she would be charged and sent to jail because the accident was a result of her neglect in not supervising Caylee – so she that supplies an alternative explanation. Another explanation would be that George was culpable in some way in the death and threatened Caylee to force her not to tell anyone – that would also give Caylee a motive to avoid contact with the family, and particularly not to return phone calls from her mother. </p>
<p>So again… what evidence is there against Caylee that does not also potentially tie George to the death? It does not have to be intentional murder - it can be negligence that led to the accidental death. I think the lawyer zeroed in on the backyard pool because drownings are the leading cause of accidental toddler deaths, and everyone in Florida knows that.</p>
<p>I find the following exchange of posts either terribly amusing or hysterically sad:</p>
<p>mom:
</p>
<p>dad quotes mom and writes:
</p>
<p>then mom quotes dad and writes:
</p>
<p>On a related note, I do wish that insulting the jury’s mental capacity, to the point of laughing out loud at the foreman, was not something done so blithely by some.</p>
<p>^^^^Being a backseat juror is great. None of the accountability and none of the actual pressure.</p>
<p>I just find it ironic that those who are insulting the jury’s mental capacity clearly don’t have any clue about burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and most importantly, the presumption of innocence. Every single argument they make is premised on turning the system on its head, assuming guilt based on a plausible (reasonable) theory consistent with guilt, and rejecting all other theories based on lack of proof.</p>
<p>I(And others) pointed that out several times.^^^ But people simply dug in further. So now, there really isn’t all that much left to say.</p>
<p>Speaking for myself, I respect that the jury was unable to find Casey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and didn’t feel they had enough proof. I do believe Casey was involved in her daughter’s death in some capacity but I understand what happened with the jury in this case. (by the way, many jurors have admitted that they believe Casey was involved in some capacity, but didn’t feel they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict her as charged)</p>
<p>The speculation that George is guilty, I do question, as I didn’t hear any evidence to point that way, but it doesn’t matter in the sense that George was not on trial and the burden of proof to prove another scenario other than Casey’s involvement is not there in this trial. </p>
<p>Lastly, my own comments about juries and the idea that perhaps some criteria to sit on a jury such as a high school diploma, or perhaps a college degree, being a possible requirement, are not related to this case per se, but more a general discussion. </p>
<p>The above is my own position; that is all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s one opinion but no more valid than mine. I believe it is the jury who had no understanding of burden of proof and reasonable doubt. They didn’t understand the value of circumstantial evidence, seemingly believing that direct evidence is not only better but absolutely needed for each element. The foreman said they couldn’t consider Casey’s behavior after the death as evidence of guilt so he misunderstood that. If they considered what the lawyer suggested in opening about why Casey would turn an accident into a murder, then they went against the jury instructions. They didn’t seem to think they could use their own common sense in deliberating and a couple of them have described what amounts to an “abiding conviction of guilt.”</p>
<p>Just under 25% of US high school graduates have a degree from a 4 year institution of higher learning within 7 years of graduating from high school. The higher the SES of a high school graduate, the greater the likelihood of a college degree.</p>
<p>At one point no one could vote in the US if not a male and a “freeman.” I do not think I’d want to start looking into how to restrict those who could serve on juries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>07Dad, but right now, you don’t even need a high school diploma to serve on a jury.</p>
<p>cartera, I also think it is very rare for someone to cover up an accident to appear as a murder. I think it would be more plausible to cover up a murder to appear as an accident. </p>
<p>I do think it is believable that Casey may have accidentally killed her child, but I find it implausible that she tried to make it then look like a murder, or particularly her story that her dad tried to make it look like a murder when he is an ex-cop. If he found a child who was drowned, which is a common accident, he would not have worried that the mother was going to be charged with killing her kid. And as an ex-cop, he would not dispose of the body within a mile of the house. While that is my opinion only, it involves some common sense of what is plausible, even though of course, none of it is proof.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If you tried to enforce that, you would get more whites than blacks/hispanics in juries.</p>
<p>That is not what equality is about. (It is also not constitutional)</p>
<p>By not restricting the composition of a jury from the outset (Other than the obvious like being 18 etc…), you make the selection process fair and equitable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nor is a HS diploma required to have to pay taxes, be allowed to vote, be required to obey the law or to be a US citizen. Are you suggesting that if someone doesn’t have a HS diploma their rights and obligations should be different than those who do have one?</p>
<p>*cartera, I also think it is very rare for someone to cover up an accident to appear as a murder. I think it would be more plausible to cover up a murder to appear as an accident. *</p>
<p>I agree…</p>
<p>And, certainly, an ex-cop would not have done a lousy job at it by using unusual duct tape from the house…and then keeping the roll!!!</p>
<p>If George had been involved, he would have gotten materials from some out of town store, paid with cash, and then carefully thrown away and leftovers after that. </p>
<p>And, he woudn’t have dumped the body where he did…he would have taken it away - far away - and dumped it.</p>
<p>And, he wouldn’t have left it to stink up a car…he KNOWS dead bodies decompose and smell…he KNOWs that.</p>
<p>From that deduction, the suicide note, and the fact that Casey wouldn’t have covered for him, George had nothing to do with this.</p>
<p>I just find it ironic that those who are insulting the jury’s mental capacity</p>
<p>Their belief that George may have killed Caylee is a strong indication of their lack of mental capacity. Not their verdict. Their verdict can be argued. Their belief that Geo may have killed Caylee cannot be logically argued…at all.</p>