visagrunt wrote:
Neither her fingerprints nor any other direct evidence of her participation was found on her daughter's body or in the vicinity of the scene.
Casey Anthony even admitted she did something with Caylee. She claimed her girl drowned in a swimming pool; she didn't just leave her body there. So why is it reasonable to believe finger prints/DNA was needed to show Casey actually handled the body of Caylee??? The duct tape was linked to her house. The heart shape stickers on the duck tape was also linked to the house, along with the trash bags the girl was placed in before being dumped into a pool of muddy water in the swamp. There is no reason to doubt she touched Caylee after she died, at least no doubt which can be considered reasonable.
Is there any reason to believe that the drowning excuse reasonable could have happened? When Casey claimed George Anthony was there when they found that the girl drowned, George flat out denied the drowning story as hogwash. On top of that, he worked for the police so he would have been intelligent enough to call 911 if there had actually been a drowning incident. Plus the medical examiner said they looked at the records and each and every single time a child drowned a parent called 911 within one hour, while it took Casey Anthony years of changing her story a few times before she finally said it was a drowning (plus there was duck tape on the child's mouth, in trash bags, and dumped in a muddy water swamp). Then after the jury reached its verdict one of the defense attorneys said that we may never know what happened to Caylee (changing the story again after the drowning, Zanny the Nanny, Caylee having fun, and so on).
What other reasonable explanation is there for something like that?
Anthony was indicted for capital murder, premeditated. The prosecution did not make its case with the jury. Whatever the woman did with her kid the jury did not believe she murdered the kid.
25 Jul 2011, 9:02 pm
