<p>I don’t think that any of the authorities think for an instant that George Anthony had anything to do with this. How exactly all of the jury viewed that theory is not known. I suppose that if the evidence as presented made it so that it was possible that George did it, it had to be a consideration. The problem with trials is that a lot of important background is not considered evidence, and the jury is supposed to be clean of any knowledge of that background, so that the facts and possibilities are laid out objectively. A lot of the Casey Anthony case is hyped up by the media reports and other information that did not make its way into court. Though it gives a fuller picture of Casey, a lot of it is inadmissable and jurors are not supposed to take that into consideration even if they should be aware of it. </p>
<p>I pray the Casey Anthony can get on a path that keeps her out of trouble. My heart still goes out for her parents.</p>
<p>For your sake, I hope you’re not being serious there. You’re basing your “conclusions” on an incomplete picture. You did not have access to the information the jury has access to. i.e. None of the reports or the transcripts from interviews</p>
<p>I googled to see if former policemen get convicted of crimes. You know, I found that they do all the time. I guess being a former policeman does not guarantee that you are a very successful criminal.</p>
<p>*I guess being a former policeman does not guarantee that you are a very successful criminal. *</p>
<p>That is apples and oranges…and you know it.</p>
<p>George hasn’t even been charged with anything. There’s NO evidence of his involvement.</p>
<p>And…getting or not getting convicted has NOTHING to do with the fact that a former LE officer would at LEAST know to do SOME things (even if not perfectly) to better cover up a crime with the time to do so…and Geo would have had the time to do so…if he had been involved. </p>
<p>So, the fact that some LE officers get convicted for various crimes is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Jsanche…If the jury foreman was telling the truth when he said that he and others felt that Geo may have murdered Caylee …which would have been a suspicion created solely out of whole cloth…then that suggests that these weren’t very smart people…especially since no one was able to come forward and convince them how obviously ludicrous that suspicion would have been.</p>
<p>Perhaps the jury’s opinions were colored by the fact that Baez opened the trial with prejudicial statements and assertions that George molested his daughter, even though provided no evidence to back that up. The jury was not supposed to consider it but it is hard to erase that from your mind when you listen to him testify and such. That is all I can fathom as to why this jury seems to feel George had something to do with the death of Caylee because nothing else seems to point to that conclusion. At least with Casey, even if not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she was involved in the child’s death, there is a bunch of things that at least point to it to give SOME reason to believe that.</p>
<p>*Perhaps the jury’s opinions were colored by the fact that Baez opened the trial with prejudicial statements and assertions that George molested his daughter, even though provided no evidence to back that up. The jury was not supposed to consider it but it is hard to erase that from your mind when you listen to him testify and such. *</p>
<p>Yes…</p>
<p>So, let’s just imagine that that will be the future strategy for defense attys…during opening remarks, say horrendous things about the upcoming witnesses, so that when those witnesses are on the stand, the jury will already have tainted views, AND the witnesses will be uneasy because they know all these lies have been said about them.</p>
<p>Too bad that defense attys can’t be penalized for saying cr@p during opening statements…and presenting that cr@p as facts (not as theories!)…when they have no proof or evidence to back up their statements. </p>
<p>I have no problem with them presenting theories…such as with Scott Peterson claiming that he had no idea what happened to Laci…so the defense only offered possible theories …she ***may ***have been kidnapped by satanic worshipers who wanted her fetus…and such. If they had said that Laci’s stepdad had kidnapped her and threw her body in the bay, then that should be wrong.</p>
<p>The prosecution’s closing challenge to the jury was: **Ask yourself a simple question: whose life was better without Caylee? **</p>
<p>Let’s see. George was retired. Cindy was working. So, George was left at home with a toddler to care for by himself as his “retirement.” If it is reasonable to believe Casey felt she would be better off with Caylee gone so she could party, why is it unreasonable to believe George might want Caylee gone so that he did not have to do baby duty as an unpaid retirement sentence. I believe it was Cindy who had pushed Casey to keep the baby.</p>
<p>What was the evidence that Casey felt Caylee inhibited her from partying?</p>
<p>As other posters have mentioned, George and Cindy were “paying for everything” related to Caylee and Casey. So, is it reasonable that George might feel better off financially if he had one less to support from their retirement savings and Cindy’s job? If it is a reasonable assumption that Caylee was a social burden to Casey, it is also a reasonable assumption she was a lifestyle and income burden to George.</p>
<p>That is reasonable doubt as to which of these two possibilities is correct, both of which can be inferred from the known circumstances. And, it was the prosecution that banked the most on inferences being drawn from this type argument rather than facts and asked the jury to engage in that kind of speculation.</p>
<p>I guess the jury answered the prosecution’s question: Not just Casey’s life.</p>
<p>actually they are penalized…baez was not allowed to bring it up in closing…it is up to the prosecutor to voice his objections to the judge if he feels things were not presented in good faith (i heard one commentator say that ashton had failed to do that in this case) juries are instructed that the info presented by attornies is NOT evidence… if the jury felt it was, then they were mistaken… if they were swayed by it, they were mistaken…also there are many instances in a trial when a judge will instruct a jury to disregard something said…but once said how does it go unheard?? a flaw in the system but that is the system.
casey most likely lied to her attorney throughout all the preparation for the trial, but that is not baez’s fault…he cant put her on the stand if he knows she is lying and we have no idea if he knows what her lies are or not.<br>
and again…i dont think the jury got it right, but to say the jury system should be changed because you dont like how they arrived at their decision is pushing it i think.</p>
<p>George was not retired. He worked the 3-11 shift in security at a Lexus dealership. He worked full-time I might add.
Cindy was the primary babysitter. Casey would even drop Caylee off at Cindy’s job, so she can go to her “job” that she didn’t have. She’s really a piece of work.</p>
<p>Casey’s motive wasn’t just to party. She had a new boyfriend whom she had visited during the day with Caylee in tow. The night she said Caylee drowned, she and the boyfriend rented a video and she spent the night. He took the next day off from work so they could stay in bed. She pretty much spent every night there - moved in with him from that day on. She could party and leave Caylee at home with her parents, but she couldn’t just move in with a new boyfriend with Caylee.</p>
Well, Baez told the jury that Casey was a liar, so that’s one fact not in issue.</p>
<p>But if Casey is lying, and Cindy is lying, and George is lying… what did the jury have? They have 3 adults charged with the care of a toddler, a dead baby, and no clear evidence as to how the baby died. </p>
<p>
I don’t see any plausible scenario where George would have killed Caylee intentionally, but it’s not at all hard to think of a situation where the baby could have died on his watch due to accident, gross negligence, or even physical abuse. Which in turn might have created a very strong motive on his part to conceal the death.</p>
<p>George was at work while the alleged drowning occurred. He was at work 3-11, Caylee and Casey were seen leaving Walmart at 4:00 by a witness. If you look at the documented timeline and cell records of the 31 days, she talked to Jesse Grund at 4:10 pm on the phone, he heard Caylee in background.
George was nowhere near Casey.</p>
<p>milkandsugar…that is one of the things i find most chilling…if caylee was alive at 4:10…it was only a FEW hours later that casey is on video at a movie store and caylee is dead…arm and arm with boyfriend… accident or murder…how within a few hours can any person then act normal? once we get into the 31 days…that was survival mode for casey…lie and coverup…but those first few hours???</p>
<p>I did not watch the trial. So, you are saying that George went to work from 3-11 and Casey was seen with Caylee at Walmart at 4 PM and she also had a phone call with someone where Caylee could be heard at 4:10 PM, how did Baez explain that the toddler drowned when both Casey and George were home and then George covered it up that day? Just going by THEIR story, not to mention that George didn’t seem to have opportunity to kill Caylee accidentally or intentionally as speculated by some jurors.</p>
<p>As I recall, there was no conclusive forensic evidence that established the time or date of death. All direct evidence establishes is that Caylee was alive with Casey at the ATM(?) at 4:10. That’s all the jury had to work with.</p>
<p>On the issue of George being retired or not. He was retired from his career in public law enforcement. As other posters have noted, with Casey living in George’s home with Caylee apparently George needed to go back to work. George was getting to pay to support his unwed daughter and granddaughter in what would have been his “golden years.” </p>
<p>It is interesting that the death occurred some time (shortly?) after George had just begun to experience the pleasure of working security from 3 till 11 p.m. at a car dealership. Does it get hot in the afternoon in Florida in the summer? I know I find it hard to stand on pavement in the summer in Texas. I seem to recall this arrangement did not coincide with Cindy’s work schedule.</p>
<p>Remember it was the prosecution who suggested that all the jury needed to answer was: Whose life was better without Caylee? Reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>You are assuming that George took the job in security because there was a grandchild in the home. He may have needed the money anyway, because even before the grandchild arrived, he was supporting a grown child. The cost of the toddler in their home wasn’t that great to be the sole cause of his needing to bring in some income. Toddlers cost money but not a ton of money (yet).</p>
<p>By the way, I know others who have retired from their careers, but who still need some income and take on some work during their retirement.</p>
<p>soozievt–we are all “assuming” as the jury was asked to do in a case with only circumstantial evidence. You have assumed that George took that job for financial reasons which is not an unreasonable assumption. If George had this need without the money that Calyee added to the outlay of money, Caylee’s expenses (large or small) added to George’s financial burden.</p>
<p>Why should the jury assume Caylee needed to be dead for Casey to be able to party?</p>
<p>
What evidence did the jury hear that necessarily leads to this conclusion?</p>
<p>I don’t know that the jury had to assume Caylee needed to be dead in order for the mom to party. Nobody knows WHY Caylee is dead. It is plausible that Casey didn’t necessarily WANT her child dead but that due to some negligent act (even possibly drugging her, as an EXAMPLE), the child died. I don’t think they needed to prove why. They were seeking a capital one murder and so the motive came into play. As I wrote before, perhaps they should have stuck with manslaughter or child endangerment charges only. I do find it highly plausible, given the facts that are known, that Casey had something to do with Caylee’s death. I’m not sure if the why matters so much.</p>
<p>I just heard on TV that Casey’s attorneys have filed an appeal on her conviction of lying to the police, and is asking for state funding for the appeal. Both Casey and her attorneys sure have some huge ■■■■■■■!</p>