THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

I think she did it because her daughter got in the way of her partying.

She was originally charged with child neglect, but that charge was dropped when the body was found and the prosecutor presumably decided he could get a more serious charge to stick.

Interesting post, by the way - thanks. Hadn't occurred to me that Casey's father would have known a lot about how to cover up a murder.


Sure there is. It's still child neglect, possibly even manslaughter of some kind.


No, it's not. One of the best forensic anthropologists in the U.S. concluded that the tape was placed after Caylee's death, not before:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... der-weapon


Not true either. Casey's father had just as much means and opportunity, and arguably more motive if he thought Caylee might be his child.

Going out partying as the motive? She's got two parents who can watch the kid while she's out. Or she can give the kid sleeping pills while she's out, which she told other prisoners that she did. As far as I can tell, the only realistic reason why she might have purposely killed the kid is if she really was sexually abused by her father and stepbrother, and she was afraid Caylee soon would be too.

Is it possible Caylee was murdered by her mother? Sure, it's possible. Can we conclude that it actually is true? No, we can't, not based on the evidence, not any more than the jury could.

Sanity prevails. Finally.

ruveyn

I base my opinion on the fact she didn't report her child missing for a month. That's highly suspicious behavior. She didn't want a bunch of cops snooping around after she committed a crime so she didn't report the child missing.

It was actually Cindy who called 911.
Casey would have NEVER reported it.

Okay, thank you, Yippy. That's makes Casey Anthony look worse. She committed the crime then thought she would never tell anyone the child was missing, that way the cops would never come around and she would never be charged with a murder. She was ready to forget all about it when her mother called 911.

I'm glad that so many people on this board have the Aspie trait, "Able to read minds."

You are free to believe and opine whatever you like--but do not confuse your opinion for fact.

The fact is, so much evidence was destroyed, the prosecution could not prove it's case. It is not a fact that Casey Anthony is innocent. It is a fact this jury couldn't convict her based on the evidence the prosecutor presented. In a civil trial she could be found guilty, but who's going to sue her?

That is THE basis for a guilty/not guilty verdict. Did the prosecution prove/not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The issue cannot be guilt or innocence. Only God and the perpetrator know who really did it. The rest of us do not.

ruveyn

One of the jurors said on camera she thought Anthony wasn't innocent, just didn't have the evidence so it's not just a few people online who think she is guilty.
Don't you find it a little odd Casey never filed a missing person's report and made up a false story about a nanny that didn't exist? And this is the person the jury just let go onto the street.


The more I think about it, the more surreal it seems. And that's not even including the bad checks. Is a pattern emerging? And yet this woman will be a completely free agent soon, heaven help us all and you have the jury to thank for letting her go.

That is precisely the wrong attitude to take! This should be a red-letter day for those who believe in the rule of law.

The jury has one job and one job only--to decide whether or not the prosecution has proved it case beyond a reasonable doubt. That decision cannot be coloured by questions like, "should this person be out on the streets." The state does not get to deprive a subject of her liberty unless the state has first proved that it is entitled to do so. If we truly believe in the classical liberal sentiment that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free rather than punish an innocent one, then we must be heartened that a jury has looked beyond the repulsiveness of the crime and the questionable character of the accused and confined themselves to the operative question.

On the other hand, if we don't believe that sentiment, then we should question what business we have living in a free and democratic society.

Never, ever, blame a jury from doing the job that it was empanelled to do, no matter how much you might believe the decision to be flawed.

But it's just another example of the justice system letting someone who has a pattern of behavior that's disconcerting slip through the cracks. They did the same thing with Jeffrey Dahmer. They had many chances to get him off the street but were fooled by him again and again. It's the same with this Casey Anthony. Same sort of personality. Now she's going to be more brazen because she got away with it once, she thinks she will get away with it again and is protected by some magical force and can never be incarcerated. I predict she'll be back in prison within five years.

She was charged with capital murder, not being disconcerting. The prosecution did not prove the charge. Being disconcerting is not a crime.

You have also supposed she has committed a crime. That has not been proven. Your suppositions do not constitute a fact.

ruveyn

Another of the jurors described it in more detail. On the first degree murder charge, the initial straw poll was 10-2 to acquit. On the manslaughter charge, the initial straw poll was 6-6. I suspect the jurors who are in the "she's guilty" camp are more willing to talk, while those in the "she might be innocent" camp are not talking.


It's ironic that you say this on an aspie forum. Many aspies have trouble just paying for an item at the drug stor because the amount of human interaction is too overwhelming. How much more difficult is it to go to the police station and file a missing person report?

I'm not saying she's aspie, but I find it entirely believable that an innocent person might not notify the police about whatever happened.

Besides, according to Casey's story, Caylee drowned accidentally, so Caylee was never missing. It was Casey's father and mother who went a month without seeing Caylee before calling the police.

I am going by her pattern of behavior and it is disconcerting. She has written bad checks. She has lied to cops. She has failed to report a missing person who she has sole custody of, someone under the age of what, three? No excuse for those behaviors and they do indicate a personality disorder. She could very well be a sociopath.

If that were the case, why not call an ambulance and 911 and don't believe for a moment this girl had trouble interacting with people. She was a party animal who dated Lord knows how many men off of dating sites. That is not someone with limited interacting ability. Plus, she was a model prisoner noted for good behavior. Seems to be no hint of interacting issues there. Don't assume Casey Anthony has problems communicating with others because there is no evidence of this whatsoever.
Also, if Caylee drowned in the pool by accident, why make up a story about a Nanny that doesn't exist. Face it, the justice system let this one fall through the cracks like they have many others and she'll probably go on and do something else.