The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Is anyone besides me following this?

If so, what are your thoughts?

I don't know how anyone can think she did not intentionally kill her child.  I can't get past the duct tape wrapped around her head where her nose and mouth were.  The evidence keeps piling up against her.  I think she is a sociopath.

Chick is downright scary crazy. That poor child

I think she used chloroform on her before so she could go out and party.  I think she did it one time too many, panicked, drove around with the body in her car for a week and then tossed it out of the window into a wooded area.  20 feet isn't far to toss something that weighs 30 pounds especially if your adrenaline is pumping and you're in a hurry. 

I have never seen such cold eyes.

I don't think her own parents are much better than she is.  At least her mother.  I'm not so sure about her dad.

I haven't spent a single second listening to reports of this case on TV or reading about it online. I vaguely know that it's about some psycho woman who killed her kid, but that was enough to make me go elsewhere for my media entertainment.

You can't get away from it in Orlando. Working at home, it has been on nonstop during my day. I think the prosecution has come up short, other than the circumstantial "she didn't tell anyone", in proving this to be a planned murder, death penalty case. I don't see the jury letting her off, but I don't see a death penalty verdict coming in either. I can't wait to see how the defense handles their lead in the next couple days.

I think the last few testimonies for the prosecution is going to be very damning to any sort of defense.  I though Dr. G last week was also very damaging to the defense as well.

Side note:  I also heard that there is going to be an inmate from the prison to testify for the prosecution (possibly tomorrow).  That person probably got a pretty good bargain out of it.

You know, it just occurred to me: I have never heard anything about this child's father.

It seems surprising that it hasn't come up.

She lied to a guy and he thought he was the father until a DNA test was done.  I don't think the actual biological father ever had any contact with Caylee.  The guy who thought he was the father has given interviews from time to time.

I believe this is the case as well, which would make it manslaugther, not first degree murder.

I am against the death penalty anyway, so life in prison without parole is fine with me.

Intentionally drugging your child can fall under child abuse, and makes it harder to get a manslaughter verdict instead of murder.

It would also be ok with me if they released her into the general population of the prison.  I don't think she'd last a day that way.

They have no physical evidence of that. They aren't going to get a death penalty verdict on nothing but a dead body with no physical evidence of what caused the death. The prosecution has had two different theories 1) Chloroform 2) duct tape over the mouth and nose. You can't get a death penalty without knowing the cause of death in my opinion.

Regardless that cause of death has not been determined, I think she'll get the death penalty for sure.  Only because I can't put it past anyone (and I mean the jury) to let it slide that a 2 year old is dead.

I know one thing that has been resonating with me is Dr. G's testimony from last week where she said something along the lines of "in 100% of the cases where the death of a child has been accidental by say, drowning, 9-1-1 is called because there is a remote possibility that the child is still alive and can be resuscitated."

I really think statements like that are going to be the nail in Casey's coffin.  I don't think that there is any way that this is going to be "lessened" to manslaughter or that she is going to get life in prison.

I am also curious to see what happens during her own testimony as she seems to be able to pile lie on top of lie with such ease.  I think the prosecution is going to eat her alive simply because she has told SO many lies that I doubt she can keep up with them and all of her credibility is going to be gone with the jurors.

I think that the death penalty is unlikely.  You would have to prove prior intent, and this may be extreme negligence, turned to accident, turned to cover-up....who knows?

I want to see her dead as well, but I think you have let emotion get in the way of logical thinking. They have not been able to prove how the child died. Susan Smith & Andrea Yates (though later overturned because of insanity) didn't get death sentences and they were just as tragic IMO.

Her lack of remorse seems to have everyone up in arms in this case though and might on the jury as well. The others showed some remorse. Anthony shows nothing but narcissistic behavior.  No one has shown sympathy for her that I have seen although I’m sure she has her supporters. I read an article that Biaz kept some pictures out of courtroom because he didn’t want the "mature" women on the jury to confuse her as a lesbian.  If they are conservative mature women they may be less forgiving of her “me” ways.

While the death may not have been premeditated, I think the lack of care for the baby's body afterward is what is going to seal it.  The evidence is overwhelming that she drove around with a  dead body in her car for several days.  And not just a dead body of some asshole drug dealer rapist, but the body of a 2 year old baby girl.  while I understand logic needs to be the deciding factor in sentencing, there is no way around that one emotionally for anyone IMHO.

Do not need the death penalty, murder with 25 to life works just fine.

Something happened here. They transferred her to Orlando, but she was never called to testify and the prosecution has said they should be finished today.

I haven't been following the case, so forgive me if I've got this wrong, but why would that make a difference? The prosecution never calls the accused to testify, that's up to the defense. If they call her to testify than the prosecution can cross-examine, but the accused would never be called to testify by the prosecution. Am I missing something?

And can someone please fix the thread header?

^^^ Not the accused. Casey Anthony had a pen pal from a state prison that the prosecution was going to call to testify.

Ah, see I told you I wasn't following the case.

Without cause of death, I don't see how you can be convicted of murder.  What sounds most likely to me is that this woman is a terrible, completely negligent mother that deserves to be in jail, but probably not a murderer.  I bet she chloroformed her kid trying to get her to sleep or shut up, then ended up killing her by asphyxiation.  From there, she flipped out, didn't know what to do, and tried to cover it up in a bunch of ways, never getting her story straight.  She probably just threw everything at the wall to see what stuck -- blaming babysitters, her parents, dumping the body with duct-taped mouth, etc.

I don't see how you convict her for murder, much less the death penalty.

^^^ People have been convicted of murder without a body being found.

Just got word from a lawyer friend of mine that she was found not guilty of all charges except the lying to police officers.  She can expect to do some time for that, but she won't get the death penalty or a super long prison term.

Casey Anthony was acquitted of all murder/manslaughter charges and was convicted on the misdemeanor charges of providing false information to a police officer. The prosecutions case was pretty weak if you paid much attention to the trial.

People here are up in arms.  They are ranting and raving, and violently upset.

I understand reasonable doubt.  The prosecution didn't have any hard evidence, it seems.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  I remember seeing the movie Training Day.  Denzel Washington said this to Ethan Hawke several times, "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

I didn't pay attention or follow this trial at all. So I really can't say much.

But it's still pretty shocking that she's only going to be doing some minor time and some minor charges.

I also think that at some point you have to allow some common-sense into your decision-making process. It's not fair to families like this one and the Simpson family for two obviously guilty people to not have to serve any time or hold any accountability based off of technicalities and poor prosecution / crime scene work / etc...

If this cannot be, then we really need to look at the "trial by jury" system itself, which I believe is very flawed. How about a "trial by judges", where highly intelligent and integrity individuals hold the balance of someone's life in their hands, and not a group of old retirees and people with nothing better to do?

Anyways - this bitch will live free but it's also a technicality - she won't ever get hired anywhere or respected anywhere. You will see her doing porn and winding up on tabloids high on drugs soon enough.

In this case, a guilty person probably will walk free.  But, the system is a net positive.  The court of public opinion is no place to have a trial.  You have to have evidence and the prosecution didn't.  Over the long run, it's a lot better to let the guilty walk free than to prosecute the innocent. 

You need to make legal decisions with a clear head, free of your personal emotions, gut feelings, and based on evidence, not speculation and circumstance.

I followed every second of this trial.  I am ok with the verdict although I do not understand the logic (You didn't kill your kid but you definitely lied about it).

But I am not a juror stuck in a media vacuum where I had never heard anything about the case besides what was present in court.

The good thing is that a lot of people watched this...more than the OJ trial just with the onset of live streaming and social networking.  I bet you at least one of these people who watched this are crazy, own guns, and have nothing to lose....and because of THAT Casey Anthony needs to consider relocating for serious.

The common-sense part that I am asking for here is for some stipulation that states she can never have kids ever again, period.

One fact that was presented is that she waited X number of days to report her child missing. Any number greater than 0 that you can replace X with = a shitty parent who should not be a parent to any kid, ever. I can live with something like that.

Most of the legal experts on TV are agreeing with the verdict. I don't think your plan would have changed the decision much.

She was found guilty of lying to police.  Sterilization isn't an appropriate punishment for that.

You have to separate your emotions and look only at facts.  Not guilty is not guilty.  There's no such thing as "kinda guilty".

Even though I think that she did something bad, I don't know what that something bad is.  There just wasn't evidence to tell whether or not she outright murdered the kid, neglected her to the point that she killed her by accident, or if she's just a fruit-loop who found her kid dead (by someone else in the family) and then carried around the body.

I'm betting that if you did that, even more would be found not guilty than trial by your peers. Certainly in this case the judges would have found her not guilty it seems.

The trial by jury concept was brought about because for decades, a judge had the power to put away someone he didn't like, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Because any of these scenarios is possible within the confines of the prosecution's case is, by definition, reasonable doubt.  Therefore, the verdict is correct.

You can not rely on people's "common sense" to make the jump and fill the gap about what she "probably" did.  It needs to be cold, hard, evidence and facts that are undeniable.

If a trial by jury is a fair system, then why did it produce an unfair result?

Casey Who?

Fair doesn't mean "correct".  It means that it's the same for everyone.

The bottom line is this:

We have to choose a level for what constitutes guilty.  In our case, we choose "a reasonable doubt".  With that, you're going to let the occasional person walk free that is guilty.  The alternative is to loosen that definition, and let the occasional innocent person get convicted and jailed or put to death.  Given those choices, I choose the prior every single time.

I didn't watch any of the trial but if she really didn't call the cops until 30 days later after her child went missing, then I don't know why you wouldn't support sterilization just for that.

I've said this several times today.  I think she is guilty but I am ok with the verdict.  It's not like she can go back to any sort of "normal" life.  No one is going to hire her.  She doesn't get a quiet life on Suburban Drive (The 'Bella Vita' as she says) without a constant barrage of media scrutiny...and like I said before, someone will probably whack her Goodfellas style.  I am ok with that.  I think that is plenty of punishment.

That said, emotion aside, I think there was a general lack of common sense.  Which all jurors were asked to bring with them into deliberation.  You don't not report a missing child for 31 minutes let alone 31 days...and you don't find duct take on a body that died by "accident."  Let alone duct tape that isn't produced anymore and was found in the Anthony home. 

Who says it's unfair? I didn't really watch the trial, but from what I've heard there wasn't a whole lot of evidence to go on. Mostly circumstantial that didn't prove anything conclusively other than maybe that she lied to police.

Agreed, but it doesn't prove murder. Neglect maybe.

Agreed again, but it doesn't prove who put the duct tape on her.  Could have been the mother, could have been someone else. I think this was the major problem here, proving that it was the mother that committed the crime if one was indeed committed.

There were 300ish pieces of evidence.
Of those 300 bits of evidence, yes, there were several that more than 1 person had access to.
There was, however, only 1 person who had access to every single piece...and we just let her get away with it.

Side Note:  Who calls their family the day they get arrested from jail not to ask if there are new developments in finding her daughter but for her BF's phone number?
Weird.

I wonder if the prosecutors are going to go after Cindy for perjury? Typically I don't think they charge people with it a lot because it is difficult to prove in many cases, but they have some good evidence against Cindy.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (William Blackstone)

It's one of the central pillars of the judicial system and defending it from the constant onslaught of single-case bullshit is critical.

Was she charged with desecrating a corpse or something similar for wrapping duct tape around the head and wrapping the body in garbage bags and dumping it in the woods?  Isn't that all illegal somehow?

No she wasn't charged for that and I don't think they would have had any evidence to prove that either.

Strategically a DA will often not charge the defendant with every possible and conceivable crime.   

One big reason for this is juries often like to compromise.  Charge the defendant with 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder and often a jury with go with 2nd degree as a compromise between not guilty and 1st degree.  Likewise if the defendant is charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter a jury will often go for the compromise of manslaughter.  Often a DA won't make the manslaughter charge b/c the DA want to force the jury to either let the defendant walk or convict of murder and is worried that an option of manslaughter would be too appeal to the jury.   Also too many charges can confuse and over complicate the trial.  Or make it look the the DA is fishing. 

Then sometimes other things are added in not because the DA want a conviction on that count but because it lets additional evidence in.  For example the lying to the police charge, that allowed evidence that put the defendant in a bad light into the evidence that would not otherwise be admissible on just the murder charge.

Because of the 5th amendment she can not be tried for that now.   

Actually her first degree murder charge was inclusive of charges for second degree murder, third degree murder, & manslaughter.

I don't think the 5th Amendment has any role in now charging her with improper disposal of a body. That is a completely different offense so she is indeed not being tried for the same crime twice. They aren't going to go that route though.

Completely false.  I forget the exact language, but I think it went something along the lines of "arise from the same activities or events"

E.g. It would have been impossible to try Timothy McVeigh for the murder of one of the people in the Alfred P. Murrah Building have him be found not guilty (or even guilty)  and then try him for a second person and keep repeating for each of the 76 victims. 

If a person robbed two liquor stores on different days then that could be one trial covering both or two separate trials one for each.   

I think the verdict was proper given the evidence presented.  The DA did a poor job prosecuting this case.  Never should have been a death penalty when there was not a cause of death provided.  Prosecution tried to stretch the truth to get a 1st Degree conviction and it backfired on them.  One witness testified she searched for "chloroform" 84 times, then it was shown she only searched once, and that was directly after she viewed a facebook page where the term was used.  George Anthony was not fully truthful, and that put doubts into the minds of the jurors whether he could be involved.  The heart sticker on the duct tape was made up.  If the DA had kept this simple and went for manslaughter she would have been found guilty.

^^^Manslaughter was part of the charges. As I stated earlier, the jury was instructed that the first degree murder charge also carried with it the possibilities of second & third degree murder as well as manslaughter.

I don't think the McVeigh example really fits. I'm not trained in this area so this is from my own study and interpretation. He could have been tried differently for each victim whether found guilty or not guilty. The Supreme Court has ruled that an offense and a conspiracy to commit the offense are not the same for double jeopardy. Also, I believe that multiple incidences of a single act can be tried separately as long as there is different material evidence. To explain further, if he had been acquitted and they only tried him for one person's death and nothing else, new evidence would allow them to try him for a separate death. This would not be allowed to include any charges or evidence from those charges he had already been acquitted for (in this example let's say he was simply charged with one death and not account for any other possible charges he faced such as terrorism, etc.)

An example I would use of this is let's say McVeigh had killed a security guard by gunshot before he planted the bomb. It was all part of the same act, but had he been acquitted of the bombing, separate evidence could convict him of the security guard killing.

I realize that manslaughter was included, my point was that the prosecution pushed this as death penalty case from the begining, and I think that was a mistake.  Once the jury passed on the 1st & 2nd degree charges it made it easier to also find not guilty on the manslaughter charge because the DA didn't come close to proving 1st degree.  The whole focus was on the death penalty.

Phishfan, how is what you're describing any different from double jeopardy?

If what you are saying were true, there would be no need (or even any point) to trying her for murder and manslaughter at the same time.  You would try her for murder, then if that failed, you would immediately re-arrest her and try her for manslaughter, then if that failed, you would re-arrest her again for child endangerment, and so on.

I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly Spider. My point that I don't think trying her for improper disposal wouldn't fall under double jeopardy? The crimes in your question would all be related under the first charge. Improper disposal of a body is unrelated to a murder charge. You can improperly dispose of a dead body when a person dies from natural causes, accident, etc. I'm afraid I just don't understand your question as written.

How can you be convicted of improperly disposing of the body, if the courts already ruled that she's not the killer?

(even though she probably is)

Or course, even if they could charge her with that, she's out of it easily.  "I didn't kill her, so how could I have disposed of the body?"

I already said how. You can improperly dispose of a body even if you didn't murder them. People die everyday from accidents, natural causes, etc. and you still have a body to deal with at that point. The defense's position was that Caylee died in an accidental drowning. Something had to be done with the body.

If you are referring to the case I am thinking of, they ruled they are not the same for double jeopardy to be charged as separate counts, not separate trials.  For example you CAN NOT be found guilty of both attempted XXX and XXX for the exact same incident because it violates double jeopardy, but you can be for XXX and conspiracy of XXX.  But you still need to be tried on both counts in the same trial. 

What is considered double jeopardy for the purposes of different counts and for different trials is an entirely different standard. 


Here my recollection is a bit sketchy but I think you are incorrect.  But on the other hand if two days earlier he shot some in a robbery to steal materials to use in making the bomb, that absolutely could be a different trial. 

Right, but it's all tied to the same event (death of Caylee).  Therefore, if you intend to charge Casey with that, you need to do so at the murder trial.

Essentially, you are creating a double jeopardy loophole.

^^^ Additionally, the accused has a right to a fair and speedy trial.  Since the prosecution said all along that she dumped the body there, the defense can argue that Anthony was not provided a speedy trial since they've had three years to charge her and didn't.

The right to speedy trial doesn't really apply.  The clock starts with being charged with the crime not committing a crime.  Double J is what will prevent this. 

And the supremes have pretty much gutted speedy trial requirement with so many exceptions that it rarely ever comes into play. 

Really? How many times have you seen someone charged with murder and illegal disposal of the body was a lesser included charge?
Her defense never argued she did not dump the body, they argued it was an accident. She was charged with killing her child and not with a seperate crime of illegal disposal.
She could be charged with it and would have a hard time denying she did not dump the body of her child in a swamp are did not report it.
Since it is a seperate crime from the one she was charged with, it should not be double jeopardy as you can be charged with murder wether you try and dispose of the body or leave it lying where you killed them, it makes no difference to the actual charge of murder.

bsmooth, I am not saying that she could not have been charged with that.  I am saying that the time for that has passed.  If they intended to charge her with it, they should have done so concurrent with the murder charges.

What you are proposing would completely gut the concept of prohibiting double jeopardy.  At the conclusion of any acquittal (or conviction!), the prosecution could just serve up more charges, keeping the defendant in a perpetual state of pre-trial imprisonment.

How would it gut double jeopardy? She is not being charged with the crime of murder in any of its forms period. If she were to be charged with the illegal disposing of a body, that is a seperate crime from murder as it has been pointed out you can illegally dump a body without having been responisble for the person dying.
You are broadly applying double jeopardy to cover charges that are seperate from the main charge. You are equating disposal of a body to being the same level of crime as murder.

^ Good point.

I think this also adds to the not guilty verdict.

While motive and prior signs of abuse are not required for a guilty verdict, without other hard evidence, it's really hard to convict if you don't have these.  (A key difference in the Scott Peterson trial.)

The mother and daughter seemed to get along well, and there was nobody that would stand up and say otherwise.  She sounded like a loving mother (aside from the whole killing her kid thing.)  It is a big leap to go from no sign of abuse to murder, without hard evidence.

Multiple trials for a single criminal act. 

Just a guess on my part.

By enjoying one more than the other eventually. Parties are almost always fun. The responsibility of needing to drag yourself out of bed to care for someone can eventually lead to resentment of needing to do this and eventually to the person theirself.

You know what else is a separate charge from murder?  Lying to law enforcement.  And yet she was tried for that at the same time as the murder, and convicted on those charges.

^^ That really bugs me, too....Fau and I have been trying for the better part of 2 years to have a baby and this nutbag gets a perfect, healthy one and kills her.  It makes me so angry.

It never fails that if you try and do right, get married, get financially stable, wait a good amount of time to settle into your marriage, etc, you can't get pregnant.  BUT be an irresponsible C U Next Tuesday, you get knocked up by getting sneezed on during a 5 day whore bender.  Unfair.

End rant.

Maine, you don't think there are people out there who resent their biological children?  Surely you've heard of men who want nothing to do with children that they've fathered.  And obviously abortion is still a common occurrence in this country.

I think maybe the reproductive freedom of the posters on this site is skewing their perspective a bit.  When you are a (more mature) person who wants a child and has to work towards that end, you are going to view the situation differently than someone in their early 20s who feels like an unwanted pregnancy has ruined their life.

I'm no child psychologist, but I don't think you can judge a 2-year-old's living situation based on whether or not they smile in pictures.  I personally know of happy children that were in situations so bad that they were removed from their parent's custody.

I've never actually seen it put quite that way before. I'll have to tell that one to my wife who I thought wrote the book on this type of stuff. :)