Do you think Casey Anthony is guilty, or not?

I have to admit I've been watching the trial a little compulsively.

We have a winner. :hi:

eom

missing. For 31 days, she didn't report her daughter as missing and was caught on tape partying while her daughter was gone. Eventually they found the body, and now she's claiming her daughter drowned in the pool and her father (a retired police officer) was the one who covered it up.

(instead of focusing on critically important issues)

She's 60 years old, let her do what she wants to do.

but it's all over the internet and TV and conversation. :wow: I wish I could remain that much out of some of these "flavor of the day/week/month hot topics". CONGRATS to you! :thumbsup: :-)

hearing about this girl.

juror.

Seems their bug expert's testimony backfired.

I don't suppose that's a good sign for Jose. I really expected him to come out of the gate strong, after his opening statement, but so far he's presented a snooze-fest.

The only person who can corroborate the allegations of incest and drowning is her. But she is a pathological liar and probable sociopath. If she testifies, the prosecution will eat her alive. Baez should be sued for malpractice.

on the grounds of ineffective counsel!

:think:
rocktivity

Apparently he graduated from law school in 1997 but was barred from taking the Florida Bar Exam because he owed back child support. While waiting until he was allowed to take the bar he was involved in a couple of businesses that sold bikinis. He finally was allowed to take the bar exam and was admitted to the bar in 2005.

Casey Anthony got her referral to Baez from other jail inmates. :wtf:

One of the anchors was interviewing a defense lawyer, I think her name was Rikki, and she blasted the defense team for how complicated they'd made it all; how instead of poking holes in the prosecution's case they really had to offer proof of their own narrative or lose cred with the jury. That summed up the whole mess for me.

The commentators were having a fit on one show...that tells me that Baez did well.

They were having a fit because he was trying to pull some shady stuff. Didn't do him much good though.

...I cannot stand the male DA. He is just sooooooo self impressed and he most certainly is not on a search for truth. I find him very offensive with his win at all costs attitude.

today everyone found out no one thinks that body was moved around much later than a couple days after death. Ooops!

...if you disregard all the theatrics by the DA, and look at the testimony, there was some damage done to the prosecution case.

their crazy opening. They lost the timeline, Kronk is going to be a big laugh... unless one of the Anthonys decide to go along with the abuse angle I don't see they have anything. What do they have? Not what doesn;t the prosecution have- but what does the defense have right now?

to make sure she doesn't abandon and/or kill any more children.

juror who has already stated that she has no right to judge anybody and they (the experts) feel she will not vote guilty no matter what so Casey will probably walk unless they decide to retry the case. I think the whole damn family is guilty of something; murder, hiding the body, molestation, whatever.

The febbies never order paternity testing unless there is a strong reason to do so...and they requested this in the case.

Something smells really bad about this entire family. Casey, IMO, did not get to be the way she is because of a great up-bringing.

JMHO

So Murder One is out. I did not see the prosecution connect her to the body specifically. And there were no marks of violence on the remains. The heart shaped sticker residue was debunked yesterday and Casey was not the only person with access to the Sunbird auto.

I think she did it, but the prosecution did not prove their case.

JMHO

computer. Ways to choke, break a neck...

...the DA showed nothing. Their case in chief ended. Have you been watching this trial?

Thus, the DA put on no evidence today ~~ and in particular did not address any issue of premeditation.

I think she's guilty. And I DO NOT believe the charges against her parents. This woman,IMHO, is a classic sociopath. Get in her way, take the attention away from her etc, etc., and she gets rid of you.

...I don't think they proved their case. The testimony about the chloroform was conflicted even by the DA's own witnesses.

But I think, and hope, she will be convicted on what I consider very strong circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately, I do not believe she'll get 1st degree, which I think she deserves.

...there are too many holes in the prosecutions case.

My heart bleeds for the poor child ~~ dumped in the middle of the family from hell.

I think she was pissed off she had to take care of the kid in order to get away with her grifter lifestyle.
I think she was going to make the kid disappear, and blame a parent who she would kill in "self defense".
If she didn;t want that house so bad, I'm sure she would have set fire to it.

...that is an adult to adult form of violence. Children usually are smothered to death or suffocated in some manner ~~ including drowning.

That to me seemed very out of place in searching for methods to kill a child.

...the death of Caylee was a horrible accident. Not from drowning but for drugging her to sleep so she could go out and party. That is the one explanation which fits all the facts I have seen so far in this trial.

I first thought this when I read the autopsy report when it was released to the public.

...so what does that prove?

and you searched 84 times about hacking and how to hack, and what happens after you hack.....because, that proves you were thinkng about hacking. LOL.
ANd it woud be roughly analagous to this case, and actually relevant.

Murdering Caylee (by putting her to sleep with chloroform and suffocating her with duct tape three layers thick) solved two problems for Casey: being a single parent and punishing her mother for forcing her to become one.

:(
rocktivity

She got that AFTER the fact. Premediation takes place prior to the act.

:headbang:
rocktivity

...he specifically stated the people get tatooes in memory of deceased persons all the time.

Jury instructions on this would say that the explanation that supports innocence must be taken over one that supports guilt. The defense won on this issue already.

The tatoo adds nothing to the case and it most certainly does not prove up premeditation in a Murder One case.

How did she manage to know that? And I'll accept the explanation that makes the most sense, thank you.

:headbang:
rocktivity

Please point that out, OK.

I think that tattoo was about her being FREE of Caylee.

:headbang:
rocktivity

explanation. :shrug:

but I just don't believe any mother can knowingly kill her child.

Don't know if that's such a good excuse though.

...and believe that she is so self-centered she would do that in a heart beat. That has been my theory of the case all along.

IMO, the DA overcharged going with Murder One. I think it was involuntary manslaughter ~~ the doing of a grossly negligent act which resulted in a death.

It happened and she hid the body afterward...those pieces fit. That also, IMO, fits with the internet searches ~~ how to get the drug and use it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/16/mother-kill-children-society-_n_850094.html

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/1578

http://beta2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/jan/30/MENEWSO17-moms-who-kill-children-are-rare-but-comp-ar-11456/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/08/18/sc.mother.children.psychology/index.html

It's as old as Medea!

and it's why society stops in it's tracks when it happens. People are outraged and taken aback when a father kills his child but we are more accustomed to the male as a killer. The mother who kills blows apart two societal norms, the female as a violent creature and the vessel of life destroying her own creation.

Got two words for ya. Susan Smith.

You might want to get your head out of your bible once in a while.

Your response seems randomly hateful because you had nothing to base that assumption on and no reason to go there.

been in a bible since I took catechism at age seventeen. I just believe that motherhood is close to saintly.

There's nothing holy or magical or miraculous about reproduction and childbirth. In fact, creating an aura of "saintliness" around motherhood is just one more way of "other"ing females. It's like the tokenization of blacks in films by making them "magic negroes" (i.e. The Legend of Bagger Vance, et al.)

her words, "mouthy".

http://abcnews.go.com/US/julie-schenecker-released-hospital-charged-killing-kids/story?id=12801885

She knew what she was doing. She wrote it all down 3 days beforehand.

Any human can be capable of horrible things.

And I loudly expressed it! :D

It was really rather pathetic.

...people are congregating outside the venue, yeah, that's a show trial. Can it still be a fair trial under those circumstances? Perhaps.

People are punching each other out for places in line.

But, for his part, the judge seems solid. Looks out for the jury and no shenanigans or ego trips (I think it was the judge in the Anna Nicole Smith debacle that cried repeatedly in open court? There was a show trial inside and out!)

First of all, think about how bad that is - reporting on people obsessed with watching obsessive reporting. Second, she was clearly PROUD to have quit her job so she could spend every waking minute glued to any little snippet of coverage she could find on the thing. Clearly in the "get a life" department.

On Edit: That would have been at a bar so I couldn't just change the channel. I quit watching TV at home before that shit happened.

What I've heard is so damned sad I really don't want any more details.

Is it me, or does "Tot Mom's" dad, George Anthony, look separated at birth with John Ensign? (I'd add photos here if I knew how.)

nt.

Personally, I'm convinced she's guilty. However, proving that is quite another matter, and I'm not totally sure the prosecution has done that. Yes, they've put on quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. It sure looks like she did it. However, a really good defense attorney could poke plenty of holes in their case. Fortunately for the prosecution, they're dealing with a bumbling idiot for a defense attorney.

And if she is found guilty, I would not be surprised to see this overturned on appeal. From listening to some legal experts, the prosecution has done several things that really surprised them and could be considered highly prejudicial.

I have to admit, I didn't want to think she was guilty. I don't want to think people are capable of that.

I would like to think she was just a stupid 20-something who as in over her head and accidentally killed her daughter.

But then I see the evidence, and I see her, and something just isn't right.

And it really disturbs me. I have two kids, a boy and a girl, and if they so much as got a scratch I would want heads to roll.

And yet she went a month without reporting her daughter missing. A month.

The whole case is very disturbing, and no matter what way you look at it its got tragedy written in big, red letters all over it.

I do think that her defense strategy is incredibly stupid. But, I'm no lawyer so...

...and she's being a drama queen in court. On cue. If she were less of a sociopath, she would have had a hell of a Hollywood career. But she's completely sociopathic. She entirely lacks the ability to function on a normal human emotional level. She was jealous of her daughter so she killed her. Then, and I'm quoting her here, "All anyone cares about is Caylee." She whined that no one was supporting her at that time and all anyone cared about was getting the little girl back. Well, duh! She was a defenseless kid with a completely insane mother. I hope they find her guilty. And while I'm normally against the death penalty, this woman is a waste of oxygen.
Duckie

Did Casey dream up the defense's case as laid out in opening statement or can the defense just make that kind of shit up?

If the defense bought anything one of the worlds greatest liars said they are stupid, imho.

Obviously it is very easy to cross this line and I am sure that it is often done (at least to a degree).

The defense lawyers are not supposed to invent a scenario describing what their client did. The explanation of their client's activities should only come from the client. Of course they can help the client frame it properly and describe so as to cast the best light on their client. But they are not supposed to invent a story and take it to their client.

Now when it comes to other aspects of what happened where their client would not know the details (police handling of evidence, action taken by other individuals that their client would not have direct knowledge of, etc.) then they are free to invent potential scenarios and present them. But they can not put forth information as fact when they know that information to be false.

I happened to be up early enough this morning to see that exchange between Baez, of Casey Anthony's defense, and the judge. They had a witness up, a forensic anthropologist, who tried to present opinions which were not reported in advance. The judge was not going to have trial by ambush, and this had apparently been a repeat problem which he deemed unfair.

They had some back and forth, with the judge asserting his own prior experience as a lawyer. Baez was told that the judge may seek to hold him in contempt after the trial, that he has not been acting in good faith.

Prosecution is skewering the defense's alternate coroner.

it seems like he has no idea about the corcumstances of the case except what Baez told him.
Admitting he doen;t remember anything at all about police reports or other reports. Only that he had seen them once.

She might have freaked out man when Casey died in the pool. Why didn't she call 911 as any normal mother would. I forgot she was a "party girl"
She will do life in my opinion.

WOODS.

I wondered about the baby's father and her car...when did they get a call to tow her car? I missed that part..

I am learning more about human decomposition than I ever wanted to know.

Sorry, I don't pay attention to such bright, shiny diversions.

:applause:

hey everyone has different "diversions" i guess.

Its nothing more than an excuse for the news networks not to cover news.

I used up my quota of following trials for the rest of my life. All I wonder now is WHY was I so obsessed :shrug: and could I please have my time back. :yoiks: