Casey Anthony - guilty, or not?

Glenn · 07-10-2011, 11:23 AM

[QUOTE=Sachita;

The thing I don't get is the clorofill (sp) and why she would use this to sedate her daughter when there are so many drugs on the market. This part leaves me wondering what her real intentions were.[/QUOTE]

Because she thought looking up recipes for chloroform on the internet was easier and less noticeable. She researched the internet how to use chloroform. Began using it to put her daughter to sleep while she partied. One night, she could'nt wake her up and freaked, so she placed her in a garbage bag, placed a heart-shaped sticker on her mouth, and sealed it with duct tape. She then tossed her in a swamp. 30 days later,she reported her missing, and gave a fake story about a Hispanic nanny. At the very least she should have been convicted of manslaughter.

girl_dee · 07-10-2011, 11:32 AM

I have heard that the detectives and police today are perplexed about crime shows like CSI. Juries and citizens in general expect what they see on TV to actually happen. DNA results within a moment, crime scenes which are never tainted in any way shape or form, and larger than life (and very hot) heroes who can bring the guilty party to trial without even the smallest doubt for the jury to ponder over.

That is why I still say that people have different views on what *reasonable doubt* means. Although in this case, I struggle to see what that reasonable doubt was, but I trust that the jury found something to keep them from using it.

Beasley67 · 07-10-2011, 12:42 PM

I have never been able to reconcile the Prosecution's theory that Caylee was drugged and then suffocated with duct tape. It doesn't seem plausible. I also have wondered how much Ray Kronk (the meter reader guy) actually (and truthfully) disturbed the crime scene (or recovery site). His story changed too many times. I don't believe he did what the Defense team said. However, I don't believe he was truthful. Therefore, that put doubt in my mind about the condition of the remains.
Uglyboi and I have argued over this case from opening to closing arguments. I guess I have been looking at the facts or lack thereof. I understand that one can use logic to come to a conclusion of guilt. However, I don't think the Prosecution proved she MURDERED her child. I do believe that they proved she was present and in some way responsible for her death (through neglect or abuse). Uglyboi, however, is absolutely convinced of her guilt. UB also constantly reminds me of how Scott Peterson was convicted and sitting on death row with less physical evidence.
I just try to remind UB that 12 individuals came to the same conclusion. Then I remind UB that it is difficult to get 12 people to agree on a restaurant to eat at, let alone a verdict.

InsatiableHeart · 07-10-2011, 12:55 PM

I do not understand how they did not find her guilty of aggravated child abuse. She was responsible for that baby and the fact that she is now dead is at the least her fault. She did not report the child missing, did not tell the truth about where she was when she did mention her and then lied about talking with her on the phone when she was already dead.
I have no right to judge but, she will face her maker one day and she or whomever hurt that baby will have to answer then. I can only pray there really is a special place for people like that.

Toughy · 07-11-2011, 01:04 PM

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

AtLast · 07-11-2011, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toughy

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

No she wasn't and there was no proof (any history of child protective services intervention or calls to police) of her being an abusive parent. her own parents did not make any statements of her being abusive or neglectful (of course, they practically raised this little girl). No friends or boyfriends, neighbors, etc. were on the stand that witnessed any abuse.

Sometimes with cases as horrific as this one and as widely publicized and scruitinized, based on circumstantial evidence without any DNA or some other forensic "silver bullet," really do end up with the "court of public opinion" over shadowing the lack of conclusive evidence.

I hate it that this obviously disturbed and dysfunctional young woman will be out in society. Personally, I think she either caused an accidental death or otherwise- simply an act of neglecting just how easily a little kid can drown or die of things like being left in a closed up car. Think of parents that have left kids or babies in cars for 10 minutes and caused their death or the child being abducted.

I wonder too if the state didn't blow it by insisting on a 1st degree murder death penalty jury. Jurers selected as such can be much harder to convince in a circumstantial case. They were chosen because they will impose death.

I just feel like there were many variables as to why she was found not guilty. She certainly isn't innocent of either wrong or neglectful behavior, however.

JustJo · 07-11-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toughy

I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong.

She was charged with it, but not convicted.

UofMfan · 07-11-2011, 04:07 PM

I am posting this great article here.

I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around.

Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions.

My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs.

I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets:

Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to do away with juries altogether.

Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling.

This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.

07-10-2011, 12:55 PM	#4
InsatiableHeart Junior Member How Do You Identify?: femme Preferred Pronoun?: she, her Relationship Status: what an amazing thing love is Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Port Kent NY Posts: 54 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 70 Thanked 113 Times in 43 Posts Rep Power: 618432	I do not understand how they did not find her guilty of aggravated child abuse. She was responsible for that baby and the fact that she is now dead is at the least her fault. She did not report the child missing, did not tell the truth about where she was when she did mention her and then lied about talking with her on the phone when she was already dead. I have no right to judge but, she will face her maker one day and she or whomever hurt that baby will have to answer then. I can only pray there really is a special place for people like that. __________________ Insatiable Heart

07-11-2011, 01:04 PM	#5
Toughy Senior Member How Do You Identify?: pervert butch feminist woman Preferred Pronoun?: see above Relationship Status: independent entity Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oakland Posts: 1,826 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 4,068 Thanked 7,655 Times in 1,523 Posts Rep Power: 21474853	I don't believe she was charged with aggravated child abuse. I could well be wrong. __________________ We are everywhere We are different I do not care if resistance is futile I will not assimilate www.butchfemmesocials.com/

07-10-2011, 11:23 AM	#1
Glenn Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Ol butch bones. Preferred Pronoun?: Old thing Relationship Status: Too old to play. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: :rolleyes: Posts: 1,547 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,602 Thanked 3,729 Times in 1,095 Posts Rep Power: 21474853	[QUOTE=Sachita; The thing I don't get is the clorofill (sp) and why she would use this to sedate her daughter when there are so many drugs on the market. This part leaves me wondering what her real intentions were.[/QUOTE] Because she thought looking up recipes for chloroform on the internet was easier and less noticeable. She researched the internet how to use chloroform. Began using it to put her daughter to sleep while she partied. One night, she could'nt wake her up and freaked, so she placed her in a garbage bag, placed a heart-shaped sticker on her mouth, and sealed it with duct tape. She then tossed her in a swamp. 30 days later,she reported her missing, and gave a fake story about a Hispanic nanny. At the very least she should have been convicted of manslaughter.

07-10-2011, 11:32 AM	#2
girl_dee Practically Lives Here How Do You Identify?: Femme Preferred Pronoun?: dee Relationship Status: Hitched up Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Livin’ the Dream Posts: 24,079 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 30,560 Thanked 54,831 Times in 13,908 Posts Rep Power: 21474873	I have heard that the detectives and police today are perplexed about crime shows like CSI. Juries and citizens in general expect what they see on TV to actually happen. DNA results within a moment, crime scenes which are never tainted in any way shape or form, and larger than life (and very hot) heroes who can bring the guilty party to trial without even the smallest doubt for the jury to ponder over. That is why I still say that people have different views on what reasonable doubt means. Although in this case, I struggle to see what that reasonable doubt was, but I trust that the jury found something to keep them from using it.

07-10-2011, 12:42 PM	#3
Beasley67 Junior Member How Do You Identify?: As a woman Preferred Pronoun?: Her Relationship Status: Married Join Date: May 2011 Location: I live in a shoe with UB, Woody and Elvis Posts: 22 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 16 Thanked 44 Times in 9 Posts Rep Power: 1033610	I have never been able to reconcile the Prosecution's theory that Caylee was drugged and then suffocated with duct tape. It doesn't seem plausible. I also have wondered how much Ray Kronk (the meter reader guy) actually (and truthfully) disturbed the crime scene (or recovery site). His story changed too many times. I don't believe he did what the Defense team said. However, I don't believe he was truthful. Therefore, that put doubt in my mind about the condition of the remains. Uglyboi and I have argued over this case from opening to closing arguments. I guess I have been looking at the facts or lack thereof. I understand that one can use logic to come to a conclusion of guilt. However, I don't think the Prosecution proved she MURDERED her child. I do believe that they proved she was present and in some way responsible for her death (through neglect or abuse). Uglyboi, however, is absolutely convinced of her guilt. UB also constantly reminds me of how Scott Peterson was convicted and sitting on death row with less physical evidence. I just try to remind UB that 12 individuals came to the same conclusion. Then I remind UB that it is difficult to get 12 people to agree on a restaurant to eat at, let alone a verdict.

07-11-2011, 04:07 PM	#8
UofMfan Infamous Member How Do You Identify?: Butch Relationship Status: A very happy Mr. Grumpy Cat Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Neither here or there Posts: 7,987 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 27,733 Thanked 18,936 Times in 4,705 Posts Rep Power: 21474859	I am posting this great article here. I know that it doesn't conform to the way the majority of people feel, including some of my friends, who in FB who are passing this petition around. Then again, I am not a conformist, or one to have to go with the popular belief, in fact I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, no matter how different they are from the "majority". I usually feel most comfortable dealing with reason and logic than dealing with emotionally charged actions/reactions. My friends respect me for that, and I respect them for their beliefs. I hope time is taken to read the article. I particularly liked the following snippets: Within minutes of the Casey Anthony verdict, much of America devolved into the mass media equivalent of a mob bearing torches and pitchforks. Twitter lit up with calls for vigilante justice, and proposals that we revoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy (or at least that we revoke it for Casey Anthony). Nancy Grace nearly spit fire, proclaiming, "The devil is dancing tonight." Conservative syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro wants to do away with juries altogether. Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea. They play more to emotion than reason. But they're disturbingly predictable, especially when they come after the death of a child. So it's really no surprise that activist Michelle Crowder is now pushing "Caylee's Law," a proposed federal bill that would charge parents with a felony if they fail to report a missing child within 24 hours, or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. What's surprising is just how quickly the Change.org petition for Caylee's Law has gone viral. As of this writing it has more than 700,000 signatures, and is now the most successful campaign in the site's history. For reasons of constitutionality and practicality, it seems unlikely that Caylee's Law will ever be realized at the federal level. But according to the AP, at least sixteen state legislatures are now considering some version law. That's troubling. This is a bad way to make public policy. In an interview with CNN, Crowder concedes that she didn't consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child's death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it's even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you'd need to make Caylee's Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues? While Caylee's Law could quite conceivably ensnare innocent grieving parents, it seems unlikely that it will prevent a single child's death. Consider: Is a father who is depraved enough to kill his own son really going to be dissuaded by a law that says he must notify the authorities of his son's death within an hour of having killed him? He's already committing murder. The law isn't likely to affect a parent who kills a child in a fit of anger or rage, either. By definition, crimes of passion are perpetrated in the heat of the moment, with little consideration of consequences.