Not Guilty!

The similarity with OJ isn't about the victim or the accused but about the media coverage. neither was handled as a normal case due to the coverage. The cameras change what everybody does. The prosecution should have known that juries need brevity. If you can't prove it in 3 days, you can't prove it.

Wiseguy,

These Prosecutors are supposed to be smart enough to know they won't get a conviction for 1st degree murder on C.S.I. junk science

The prosecutors, IMO were seeing this as a case that would "Take them to the Big Leagues" A first degree murder conviction in a show trial like this would have moved them along the way to being the next F. Lee Bailey. They counted on the Media Hype to create a jury pool that deliberated with their gut rather than with the Judge's Instructions or the requirement of "beyond reasonable doubt." I doubt that they would have considered a lesser charge because it would not have been as "good" for their career.

Chris--Ashton has already been 30 years with state attorney office. Why, now, would he care about the Big League? And, they're prosecutors; why become F. Lee Bailey?? Sorry, can't agree with you this time. But, I do think the prosecution may have over-reached with the 1st degree murder charge; that is, premeditation. Primarily because I don't think Ms Anthony has the where-withal to think far ahead; she's more of a reactionary than a planner.

I actually think the prosecution put on a pretty good case, considering what was available--only bones, stench and decomp! That said. . .

It won't be popular, but I'm afraid I do blame the jury. The 3rd count, manslaughter, was perfectly reasonable, sufficient for a guilty verdict. Why they gave a pass on that I still can't figure out (but, I'm workin' on it).

For all their postulating, both sides were pleading for an emotional, gut reaction verdict. Eleven hours to deliberate on 7 charges is no where near sufficient--less than an hour of thought per charge. It's obvious this jury spent very little time deliberating. Guilty on lying because they heard it from her own mouth and her lawyer confessed it for her; but just drop the serious crime because. . . well, without a video tape of the murder, no confession, and she managed to hold off discovery til the corpse had rotted completely. . . well, how can we possibly figure out exactly how it happened!!

I apologize; I meant only to disagree about your opinion of the lawyers, got carried away. But, since I've spent the time typing, I'll just leave it there for others to . . . .

margaret,

Ashton has already been 30 years with state attorney office. Why, now, would he care about the Big League?

I base tat on something that happened here in NC about 4 years ago. The Duke Lacrosse Team was accused of raping a 30 something stripper that was hired to come to a party by the Seniors on the team. The Durham DA saw this as a chance to "Hit the Big Time" and get his name in lights. He ignored the fact that the woman was a pathological liar that had made the same charges 14 years earlier. He, the NAACP, and local media fanned this up into nationwide news before it was proven to be a lie. The University, Durham County, and several others are now embroiled in a law suit, the young men left Duke, the stripper is now in jail on 1st degree Murder Charges as of lat month, and the DA was Dis-bared. This was a train wreck from the beginning, but no one (especially the DA) slowed down long enough to look all because the DA saw his name in lights.I think there was some of that same issue, otherwise, they would have tried for Negligent Homicide or Negligent Child Abuse which they could have gotten with their eyes closed. But those charges aren't "Sexy" enough for the worldwide media.

It won't be popular, but I'm afraid I do blame the jury.

I'm glad that you aren't afraid to be unpopular; it shows character. I stay unpopular with many here on NV because I am mainly a Libertarian but, on matters of fairness and protection under the law, I am very much a liberal. That is because I have seen things that make me believe that, while flawed, Our system is several orders of Magnitude better than the nearest competition. Read my responses to John Russell in 4.2 and 4.7. I have seen far worse in Vietnam and other countries than I told about. I lived in France in the 80's and traveled extensively around Europe and Africa. Do you know that in France, you can still be locked up for a Year without being formally charged with a crime? in some of the countries I have visited, after a week in jail, you would be willing to confess to being the one that both crucified Christ and Framed Rodger Rabbit.

I don't agree with the verdict because I think she at least had something to do with her daughter's disappearance, bit I can't PROVE it. That is the whole reason I am so adamant that while I might think that they got it wrong, the system worked to provide Casey Anthony with the protection under the law with the words "beyond Reasonable Doubt." I don't think that the DA made that burden of proof. I get hot all of the time about guilty going free on a technicality, but then I realize that the technicality could one day save me.

In the play and Movie "A Man For All Seasons", Sir Thomas More gives the best explaination of why I believe what I do to his future son-in-law William Roper.

Roper: So, now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law!

More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my Own Safety's Sake, Not for his!

Everyone may believe that she is the herself, but they have not PROVEN, "beyond Reasonable Doubt" that she is, in fact, the Devil. When they can do that, I will cheerfully contribute to their firewood fund to have her burned at the stake, but not before.

Chris--I, too, a child of the Vietnam Era; thankfully safe at home. Only horror stories of those days are the damage done to returning vets by my fellow citizens; I was so ashamed! As though the soldiers were to blame for the war! I try to not remember, and am grateful for inheriting my mom's good old-fashioned Yankee commonsense.

It's interesting that we, two, can see the same evidence and reach opposing conclusions. While I don't believe she was proven guilty of premeditated murder, I saw sufficient circumstantial evidence (for me) to prove her guilty of manslaughter. About the felony murder; well, though drugging the child may have raised the manslaughter to murder 1 (aggravating circ), technically, I don't think the death penalty would have been appropriate (I wouldn't have included it!)

Certainly, I saw no evidence of pre-meditation, even with the chloroform searches; not because I don't think she made them, but because I don't think it was ever her intention to do away with the little girl.

Sidenote--some caller (somewhere) posited the following: re Cindy's testimony about her Yorkies being lethargic/sleepy and worries over plant poisons, could Casey have tested the chloroform on the dogs before dosing Caylee? Interesting. . . . 'course, neither testimony nor known by jury. . . but an interesting observation.

In any case, I think the e-photo and quip from Ricardo was, basically, a joke. But, the persistent fights with Cindy prompted Casey to look into an alternative means of dealing with an in-the-way toddler. Actually, I think the night the child died was likely the first time she even used the drug--because of the high levels in the trunk! That, having put her to sleep with the drug, she placed her in the trunk w/ rag of drug close by. (long explanation here, but will save it for an article--unless you have questions)

Later, or early next morning, discovered the child dead! She likely mourned for 45 minutes or so, then began a series of not-very-well-thought-out lies/activities to postpone/eliminate discovery. Interestingly, these very poorly thought actions ended up being her "saving grace!"

I can say, had I been on the jury, I would have deadlocked it on the manslaughter charge. Of that charge I am absolutely convinced beyond a reasonable doubt! And, that conclusion reached with only the testimony of the trial.

I do take exception to one phrase I keep seeing/hearing bandied about "beyond any and all reasonable doubt!" In fact, if one feels compelled to add "any and all," the line should read, "beyond any and all reasonable doubt." Otherwise, it just becomes something of an oxymoron. I'm a staunch believer in reasonable doubt, but I put my foot down at all doubt! If juries were held to that standard, then no one could be convicted without a video tape of the crime showing frontal views of both victim and perpetrator. Without that, a person must be willing to rely on intellect, deductive reasoning, and commonsense. . . . or cowardice.

In recent history, I must confess, I become more and more in favor of a three-verdict system--guilty, innocent, not proven. It could be done, without double jeopardy applied. I think it would be a calming influence to hear NOT PROVEN in cases such as this. The NOT GUILTY (which so many take as INNOCENT) so rankles in cases where there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun. I think it'd be easier for the public to walk away saying, "Oh, well, they couldn't prove it, but. . . " more philosophically.

When the public sees a defense lawyer announce, "This is not a day for rejoicing; there are no winners here. . . She didn't murder her daughter. . . . " Then go across the street and celebrate their victory with champagne toasts. . . . To listen to the diatribe of another defense lawyer spewing vitriole at the whole legal profession and media, sounding for all the world like a very poor winner! . . . . Acting like schoolboys who'd put one over on the teacher. . . It just doesn't sit well with the public. BUT, a simple verdict of NOT PROVEN would have put the "victory" into proper perspective. . . .

I've done it again; rambled on. There's just something about this case. . . . It's been so very interesting and, at the same time, so very disturbing. . . .

margaret

It's interesting that we, two, can see the same evidence and reach opposing conclusions.

And that is one of my main issues. Neither of us saw the evidence that the jury saw; we saw only what the 24/7 "News" (and I use the term loosely) let us see. What we see in the 90 second quip from Nancy Grace, Brian Williams, or Bill O'Reilly is far different than what will be seen or heard in court.

During the capital murder case where I was a juror, there were things that transpired where the judge removed us from the court while the 2 factions argued their points and then the judge let us back in after his ruling. Whenever something came on about the Anthony trial, the only part I heard was what transpired in the time it took me to reach the Mute Button. I don't think that any of us saw what really went on every day as a juror saw it for that reason.

My whole point is, as I told John, the idea is to make sure that if we are to deprive someone of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" we had better be damned sure we are right. I lived in Texas for almost 10 years. There a man who was convicted of the murder of his children by setting the house on fire was executed in 1994. It came out a couple of years ago (2007) that he was actually innocent and that someone else had done it. He had been convicted and wrongly executed because a law enforcement officer had lied. You just can't come back from that level of Oops.

I may disagree with the verdict, but I do think the system worked as envisioned. If you cant prove beyond "Reasonable Doubt", you can't convict. (Notice I didn't say "any Doubt" just "Reasonable Doubt".) I didn't see what they (teh jury) saw, and I didn't hear what they heard; I saw only what the talking heads wanted me to see and hear, so I'm not qualified to judge their actions.

Chris--I avoided the talking heads as much as possible, watched the trial on In session (which was better as Court TV, sadly). Pretty sure I saw as much as the jury saw. Saw all the testimony, most of the evidence (available on-line). Don't get me wrong, I'm no new junkie.

I happened to be in Florida when the missing child story broke July 16th. The personalities fascinated me. The family dynamic was curious; the mob mentality of spectators/protestors was disturbing. You know, I never quite understood--those early days--why the on-lookers were so mad at Mr & Mrs Anthony. That was a little outrageous.

But, the extent of Casey's lies really caught my attention--because I have two such ones (mother and daughter) within my family, thankfully not my kids! I think it's why I followed the case (and its attendant drama) so closely. I just wondered if I could figure her out (as I was able to my own). My experience may be why I think I have pretty accurate idea of what actually leading up to the death, and from that point on through the trial.

I've posited various theories on the Vine when commenting, not necessarily what I think is the "bottom line," but each fits fact. At least, I think so; I've invited corrections, haven't got any yet. Disagreement, but not correction. Anyway, just as an excercise, I've been writing a rather long, carefully thought out . . . . dramatic study? . . . I keep editing, as I discover a minute here, a minute there (but all adjustments must square with evidence). Waiting to see what I end up with. . . .

Mike--Ah! Thank you, let me think a minute . . . (going back in my mind, now). . . . darn, have to run to store. Give me a coupla hours; I think I gotta response. . . (smiles:)

Okay, Mike, I'm back; let me see. . . first, imo, without a video of a crime, all criminal acts become theory. But, stack evidence one block at a time, one reaches a conclusion. The only actual proof of any act would be immortalization on tape/film. So, . . . I can only deduce and isn't that what a jury does.

Why was there chloroform in the trunk in high levels, certainly higher than normal? Offer me another reason for the chloroform being in the trunk, or in the car, or anywhere near the child. I've used Febreze and other such products, which use chlorophyll as a deoderant; it can even be extracted from fresh grass clippings and spritzed on furniture (save a lot of money, too!) But, chloroform, that's a much stronger chemical!

With so much experienced testimony of the odor of human remains, isn't it appropriate to conclude that a dead body was there? If not Caylee, who? Or, does one disregard all testimony regarding the odor of decay from people who've experienced it first-hand? Not being facetious here, I really want to know how the modern mind deduces results from evidences presented.

The hair, from a decomposing body. Yes, only one hair; but there was evidence of a clean-up (paper towels w/ maggots in one of the trash bags). And, even only one hair! Should there have been even one if there was no body? Experiments to recreate the banding in live hair failed; though science can't explain why the banding occurs, that it does occur is accepted as fact.

Sorry, interrupted again. . .

margaret,

With so much experienced testimony of the odor of human remains, isn't it appropriate to conclude that a dead body was there?

Here in NC, we just had a man released after 17 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. He, along with about 100 others have been sentenced to long prison terms primarily by the "Expert Testimony" from an SBI Forensics and DNA Analyst named Dwayne Deves. He has been fired for the sloppy work that was done for 25 years by he and the SBI Lab. DNA Errors, Blood "evidence" that wasn't there, etc. There are over 100 cases that are being re-examined right now and the state is being sued over False Imprisonment.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree here because I'll have to agree with Mike. While there was plenty of reason to doubt Casey, her family, and her lawyers, there just wasn't enough to tie it all together to make the case for finding her guilty, IMO. The prosecution has to make the case and they didn't quite get there to convince the jury. Like I keep saying, the idea is to make sure that if we are to deprive someone of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" we had better be damned sure we are right when we do it. If I am going to burn someone at the stake for being a witch, I want to be sure beyond reasonable doubt, that she is, in fact, a witch.

Let's assume--for the moment--that Caylee died in the pool (please let's leave George out for now); we can safely conclude she drowned in the pool because Jose Baez said she did. That Casey disposed of the body in a moment of panic; we can safely conclude this because the body didn't roll into the swamp on its own. Now, the pool, that's an accident. But, disposing of the body raises the accident, by law, to a manslaughter, because it is evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Now, I never said I thought her guilty of murder one, but the prosecution did offer manslaughter as an alternative. What I want to know is. . . . What evidence, in a circumstantial case, would be sufficient proof for a manslaughter verdict?

And, be very specific, please. I'd really like to know. It's kinda, like, to me there's proof of manslaughter--to you, not. You tell me what, in general, what's missing. But, which of the evidence would have to be stronger, and in exactly what way. For instance, . . .

Hair root banding is accepted evidence, legally and scientifically. But, you seem to think one hair in the trunk is not enough. Okay, if the hair mat had been found in the trunk, would that have been enough? That kind of answer, understand where I'm going?

I really want to understand what was needed for proof. Mostly, I just hear/read "they didn't prove;" okay I get that (sort of). So, what proof (of the evidence available) would have been more convincing. . . .

Remember, we're not looking at the death penalty here; I understand anyone's reluctance to take another's life in a circumstantial case. But, we're addressing a manslaughter conviction; that's the one that has me stumped.

margaret,

We are both very passionate about our beliefs. That is why neither of us is willing to give an inch (kind'a reminds you of congress, doesn't it?) . I would have liked Ms. Anthony to be convicted of Negligent Manslauter or Negligent child abuse resulting in death. Those would have both been a no-brainers and the could have been prosecuted by a dyslexic 4 year old could have won. The problem I have is that neither of those were choices. They chose to go after the "Media sexy" type of charges. but, I don't really lay the blame for that on the Prosecutors, but with the Medical Examiner and the local politicians.

The problem started with the Medical Examiner ruling that this was a homicide. How did she rule that to be the case when she could not determine from the evidence when it happened, where it happend or How it happened? That is the key to being unable to declare any kind of murder or even manslaughter. This also, IMO, tied the hands of the prosecutors to go after some kind of homocide conviction rather than go after something that they could have won without breaking a sweat.

This same thing caused the jury to require a greater level of proof. If Death or life in prison had not been on the table, the jury would probably have been more open to a conviction. I can tell you for a fact having served on a capital jury, that when the weight of life or death is placed on your shoulders, you think differently and require that a FAR greater burden of proof be met. I really am glad of that because I think the days of the Hanging judge are long past. But, keep in mind, this is coming from someone that supports capital punishment under the right circumstances. The Ted Bundy's and John Wayne Gacey's need to be cut out of the heard if you know what I mean.

This trial, IMO, was a comedy of errors starting with the family and working its way up to the news media. I think that they had just as much fault as the Medical Examiner. But had the DA resisted the political pressure that must have been there to make a "Show of the Trial" and just said "Wait a damned minute, we could lose "this", but we can win "That" and still put her away for 25 to life if we an just resist the push for a Media Circus. That is where this all fell apart and now, she will walk even if her life will suck, she will still walk and there will be no justice for the little girl. The only winner in this was the media, the talking heads, and the people that will sign book and movie deals.

Thank you for pointing out reasonable doubt; I'm so tired of lawyer's and pundits raising the bar on it (and misleading juries). But, this verdict! I'm still having a problem. . .

no physical evidence linking HER to the murder (substitute "death", as in accidental/manslaughter)

Who else had the car? If George (as has been hinted), how did he get it? If no one else, then Casey!

Neither one of the two jurors that have spoken sounds like a Rhodes scholar, so to speak. and the man #14, should stop talking now. He seems to me to always be on the brink of embarrassing himself. Both of them specifically mentioned George. George should have had nothing to do with the deliberations. There was ZERO evidence that George had anything to do with the death, yet the jurors mention him as some sort of factor. Without doubt, this should cause people to somewhat question the competence of the jury.

The one guy speaking was an alternate only. He was there to hear the evidence, but wasn't involved in deliberations.

The jury is legally prohibitted from inferring anything from Casey Anthony's refusal to explain anything. There is a constitutional right not to incriminate oneself, and a jury cannot infer guilt or responsibility from the invocation of that right.

The bottom line is that the prosecution failed abysmally. The lead prosecutor acted like a spoiled child, which was certain not to inspire any kind of trust by the jury. You can't blame the jury for the prosecution's failure of proof.

John,

I agree with you many times, but on your stance her, I must disagree. I believe that justice was served and that the jury came to exactly the right conclusion because the the Prosecution did not prove to the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that Casey Anthonry killed (by either manslaughter or murder) her child or that she had any hand in her disappearance. While I do believe that she did in my heart, I cannot PROVE it to be the case. That is, after all, what the checks and balances in our system are all about, aren't they? The idea is to make sure that if we are to deprive someone of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" we had better be damned sure we are right.

When I was in Vietnam, I watched a couple of local ARVN soldiers pick up 2 guys that were suspected of helping Charlie. They put a .45 to the back of the men's heads and ended the story right there. I didn't think much of it then because the SOBs probably were Vietcong sympathizers that had helped kill and maim my buddies and I thought that the bastards needed to die. I've had almost 45 years to reflect on it and now find that it may not have been as cut and dried as it seemed when I was a young Marine. Without the trial system we have with its checks and balances, whether you like the outcome or not, none of us will have protection from what I saw in Vietnam.

Have you ever been on a Capital Case Jury? I have and can tell you for a fact it is not something that you want to do. In 1980, I served on a jury that not only convicted a man of First Degree Murder but also unanimously sentenced him to death; He was executed in 1995.

Our instructions from the Judge prior to entering into deliberations were to "Weigh the Evidence and ONLY the evidence presented in this courtroom in your determination of Guilt or Innocence." If we had used anything else in our determination, it would have been grounds for a mistrial as well as contempt of court charges for the jurors involved. Going with your "Gut", what you "believe" and what you "think" if it is not backed up by the evidence is not something that you want to do.

There are MANY people, including many well known lawyers, who feel the prosecution proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

This case was contaminated beyond hope by Baez, and the faith he apparently put in a habitual liar. He seemingly actually believes the child died in a swimming pool. Why? because that's what Casey told him. He then poisons the juries minds with fictions about alternate theories of the case. Some of these jurors may not be sharp enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I just saw the juror Jennifer Ford say that the juror might have been willing to convict her of something other than murder one, but the evidence did not support a murder one conviction.

Does she know that there was a manslaughter option in the charges ? It is discouraging to hear the kind of thoughtlessness that is coming from these jurors.

The prosecution failed but so did the jury...I blame both. The jury failed to follow the judge's instructions and, I will say unequivocally, no group of 12 people can faithfully deliberate the charges given them in this case in under 11 hours. The judge should have overturned the jury's verdict and let hell break loose....it's rare but possible!

This case, imo, was always about abuse and neglect. Part of the charges for the jury to consider:

AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE

§ 827.03(2), Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Child Abuse, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Casey Marie Anthony knowingly or willfully committed child abuse upon Caylee

Marie Anthony and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

2. Caylee Marie Anthony was under the age of eighteen years.

“Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly and purposely.

“Child abuse” means the intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child or an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child or active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

If you find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver. “Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.

“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

“Neglect of a child” means:

1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child. Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect.

Weigh the Evidence and ONLY the evidence

There was ZERO evidence in this case that the death was an accident that was covered up, yet both of the jurors that talked say that this is what they believe happened to Caylee. To at least some extent, and it is not known or going to be known just how much, Baez bs theories contaminated this jury.

John, one of the jurors that has been speaking was an alternate only, and was not involved in the deliberations.

You keep repeating that Baez "contaminated" the jury, but he did his job. There was circumstantial evidence only. His job was to offer an alternate theory that could fit the circumstantial evidence. The defense has no obligation to prove anything. If you were charged with a crime, you'd want a legal team as competent as Anthony's.

John,

There are MANY people, including many well known lawyers, who feel the prosecution proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

But the jury did not. That is, after all, the ONLY group that must be convinced.

It is discouraging to hear the kind of thoughtlessness that is coming from these jurors.

I still say it is a case of persuading the jury which the Prosecution did not do. If the Jury can be ordered or intimidated by either the court, the media, or the spectators, to provide a verdict of their liking, than none of us are safe. You do know that something like that has happened before, right?

In the 1930's show trials held by Josef Stalin, 40 people were convicted of attending a "Treasonous" meeting in 1928 at a Hotel in Leningrad. The only problem was that the hotel had burned to the ground in 1924. The jury found them guilty and they were either executed or they were sent to the Gulag in Siberia. Don't kid yourself, it can happen here too. We are never really more than one bad decision away from being nothing but lynch mobs.

He seemingly actually believes the child died in a swimming pool. Why? because that's what Casey told him.

John, had you heard Casey 'borrowed' that defense from another inmate?

John, had you heard Casey 'borrowed' that defense from another inmate?

No, but it is not surprising. She needs food for her lies and imaginations.

John, Yeah, Baez kinda lost me at some point in his alternate theory. First, after deriding his daughter for her carelessness, he jumps in and helps her cover it up. Puts the body in her trunk, and tells her to get rid of it. Remember, now, George is in charge! So, he tells Casey to go on like nothing happened; he'll keep Mom at bay; she should call home every now and then so Mom won't get suspicious--got it?!! (This is some kinda real good police thinking, isn't it?)

But, Casey has a party to go to, so she procrastinates--a little too long. Dad has to help her tape up the face to keep the fluids from leaking any more and then, either she, he or they dump the body in a swamp (instead of a decent burial in the family pet cemetery). This'd be around end of June. Alrighty, coupla more weeks pass. . .

Mom's becoming a pain; she keeps demanding to see the kid. Then, the car is found--the smell!! (Oh, crap! forgot about that!! Should've known better than trust her with getting the inside reconditioned, lazy brat!) Finally, Cindy tracks Casey down, drags her butt home and demands answers--and her grand-daughter. George sneaks off to work to mull over this new development (hadn't figured Casey'd drive around with that smell!). He might just have to throw her under the bus. . . Time passes

Maybe it's safe for the body to be "discovered"! Those EquuSearch people are becoming a pain!

He contacts Kronk (how? who cares?!), tells him where the body is, he should call the cops. (Remember, pal, there's a reward!) Three times the guy tries, gets yelled at by the cops, says "to heck with this! Ain't worth the trouble!" Weeks go by, the situation is "snowballing out of control." Why hasn't the body been found?? George calls Kronk again (how? who cares?!), Kronk says forget it, but George won't let up. Finally, Kronk's route is back in the neighborhood in December--well, alright, maybe just one more try. . . . Finally, the body is found!! And, Casey is charged, but. . . .

Does she come clean and show her father for the rat he is? Nope, She contentedly stays in jail, holding her trump card, waiting for the right day to "cash in (her) lottery ticket." Yeah, that's good! Fits the evidence, right!?!. . . Feel free to fill in any blanks!!

Please, forgive me, I'm usually a gentlewoman--but, I jus' hadta!!

Your theory is as good as any of them.

A different has now occurred to me after hearing various things over the past few days. ( For most of this trial and this case I really wasn't paying that much attention.

Casey did panic in front of her dad, but not because the child had drowned in the swimming pool, but rather, because she had accidentally killed Caylee while trying to chloroform her to sleep. She went to her dad hysterical looking for help and he suggested they hide the body in the woods, perhaps knowing by the time it was found it would have decomposed. The hope probably was that if she could convince the police the child had been kidnapped or abducted, the search would be scaled down or stopped.

I think this actually may have happened.

John, What interests me about your (and others') theories is that they include George Anthony in the "plot" (for lack of better word). Here's why I can't include him; correct me if I err.

After the Father's Day argument, Casey stormed out, leaving Cindy, George and Caylee at home. Cindy took Caylee to visit great-grampa, then returned; they swam, played, etc. All retired for the night; (I believe she spent the night w/ Tony, if I'm remembering correctly) Casey came home sometime in early morning. Cindy had already left for work w/o seeing anyone (7:00 a.m. or so). George arose around 10 am; he works second shift; Caylee got up around 11:00 a.m. George and Casey talk; she has "afternoon meeting for work." Dad can't babysit; he has to leave by 2-2:10. So, she leaves with the child between 12:50 and 1:10; Dad leaves, as usual, around 2, arrives at work by 2:30.

Now, Casey wouldn't have drugged or drowned the child, at home, knowing Dad was there; so the crime/accident must have happened later--either when no one was home, or at another location (like, maybe, a boyfriend's--in the parking lot or before arrival). That's why I don't think there was an immediate outcry--because she didn't discover the death until many hours later!

So, just get George there, rationally, with no blank times. I'm still trying fit him in logically (not because I believe, but because others do), but there always seems to be "not enough unaccounted for time" for that to happen. I'm not writing clearly here; hope you get what I'm trying to say. . . .

I'm not sure if, generally speaking, people "think" George was involved just because of Baez's accusations in opening (we tend, these days, to automatically assume sex abuse accuseds! are guilty); and that that assumed trauma mitigates her responsibility. Oddly (maybe), for me, it would never mitigate bad treatment of one's child--no matter what the mother's life was before. . . just me, I s'pose. . .

Anyway, draw me a timeline, a word picture--remembering Cindy leaves by 7 am, George leaves by 2:15, Casey and Caylee supposedly leave by 1:10. But, most important is that George did go to work, so he was gone by 2:15!