Casey Anthony found not guilty of her murder charge

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheOracle said:
OJ had more convincing evidence.

He was also famous.
Click to expand...

And the entire trial was a circus act. His fame, and that of his attorneys had more to do with his being found not guilty than evidence, in my opinion. Although doubt was definately present, I didn't see reasonable doubt. Had it been your average black man on trial, he would be doing prison time today.
 
Reba said:
I said "deserves." I didn't say it was Constitutionally required, or that it infringed on a child's legal rights. A child might not have a legal right to know his parents but he has a human right to that information if he wants it.
Click to expand...

The name does not have to be on the birth certificate to accomplish that.
 
Steinhauer said:
They had her fingerprints on the ducttape, the duct tape matches duct tape found in her father’s garage, the death band dna hair strand in her trunk, the backing to a heart sticker found in her room that matches the one on the duct tape, the blanket that was missing from her room was with the remains along with toys, the searches for cholorform on the internet and the large amount of chloroform in the trunk mat, the outline of a childs body in her trunk, the smell of a decomposing body in the trunk, the pings from her cell phone in the area where the body was discovered, the odd death references on her myspace page, etc. etc. etc.

If the child drowned, why the duct tape, why the chloroform, why the outline of the child's body in her trunk? Why the hair in the trunk?

She is guilty. There was plenty of evidence.
Click to expand...

Evidently, there wasn't "plenty of evidence" because the jury found reasonable doubt. You are simply making a judgement based on half the story that was told in the courtroom.
 
Steinhauer said:
If the child drowned, why the duct tape, why the chloroform, why the outline of the child's body in her trunk? Why the hair in the trunk?
Click to expand...

The body could have been put in the trunk after she drowned. (if that's what happened.) It's too bad drowning can't be ruled out because there wasn't enough of remains to test for that.
 
deafskeptic said:
The body could have been put in the trunk after she drowned. (if that's what happened.) It's too bad drowning can't be ruled out because there wasn't enough of remains to test for that.
Click to expand...

It was proven duct tape was covering her mouth and nose ....

she didn't drown
 
Reba said:
Since Casey failed to report a death to authorities, illegally dumped a human body, and obstructed justice, can she be charged with those crimes? If Caylee did die accidentally in the pool, Casey still broke those other laws.
Click to expand...

I thought it was not know who dumped the poor child body . I did hear on TV people thought she should get some more time for not reporting her child was missing , as waiting 31 days to report this the cops a lot of evident was lost.
I feel the same way. It is was like Casey waited so long to report her child was missing so there would not be enough evident to tries the crime to her.
 
whatdidyousay! said:
That was the whole issues , how did the child dies. There was not enough evident to tell. Only the cold blooded killer(s) know!
Click to expand...

In that case (the bolded), why were you so ready to convict her ?? You've said it over and over and over.
 
jillio said:
That doesn't mean she didn't drown. You are guessing at the cause of death.
Click to expand...

Nope ... not a guess at all. The FBI stated the cause of death was not drowning. It was having her mouth and nose covered by duct tape. All forensic evidence pointed to that, so I must say ... it is not a guess.
 
Steinhauer said:
Nope ... not a guess at all. The FBI stated the cause of death was not drowning. It was having her mouth and nose covered by duct tape. All forensic evidence pointed to that, so I must say ... it is not a guess.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. It could not be determined whether she drowned or not because of the state of decomposition of the body. In order to determine is someone is a drowning victim, they have to be able to examine the lungs for the presence of water, as well as other body tissues for clues. Again, you did not hear the testimony in the courtroom. You are simply making guesses.
 
Let me ask this. Was there any forensic proof that Caylee drown? Were there any witnesses that saw her enter the pool, or saw her in the pool, or saw her dead in the pool that day? Were there any witnesses to the aftermath of her drowning when her body was being taped and bagged? Were there any witnesses to the person or vehicle that was involved with dumping her body?

In other words, why should we believe that Caylee accidentally drown?
 
Reba said:
Let me ask this. Was there any forensic proof that Caylee drown? Were there any witnesses that saw her enter the pool, or saw her in the pool, or saw her dead in the pool that day? Were there any witnesses to the aftermath of her drowning when her body was being taped and bagged? Were there any witnesses to the person or vehicle that was involved with dumping her body?

In other words, why should we believe that Caylee accidentally drown?
Click to expand...

Just because there was not forensic proof that she did drown, doesn't mean that she didn't. There was no proof she did not drown, either.

I guess you would have to be in the courtroom and privvy to all the information that came out during trial to answer those questions.
 
jillio said:
Just because there was not forensic proof that she did drown, doesn't mean that she didn't. There was no proof she did not drown, either.

I guess you would have to be in the courtroom and privvy to all the information that came out during trial to answer those questions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the problem here.

We do not know for certain how Caylee died or who killed her or even when she died. We know she was last seen on the 15 of June. When Casey took her home, it's possible someone like her dad or BF could have come to see them and ended up killing Caylee after June 15. My personal opinion is the she most likely died between june 15 and june 22 but can I support my opinion? No.
 
deafskeptic said:
Exactly. That's the problem here.

We do not know for certain how Caylee died or who killed her or even when she died. We know she was last seen on the 15 of June. When Casey took her home, it's possible someone like her dad or BF could have come to see them and ended up killing Caylee after June 15. My personal opinion is the she most likely died between june 15 and june 22 but can I support my opinion? No.
Click to expand...

Right. There is just a whole lot of speculation in this case. That is why reasonable doubt came into play.
 
jillio said:
Just because there was not forensic proof that she did drown, doesn't mean that she didn't. There was no proof she did not drown, either.

I guess you would have to be in the courtroom and privvy to all the information that came out during trial to answer those questions.
Click to expand...
So, there was also no evidence that she wasn't smothered or gassed.

The entire trial was televised. If there had been evidence of drowning, it would have been mentioned. There was none.

All they have is Casey's story about drowning. Casey, the pathological liar who told many stories about what happened to Caylee, was the only source of the drowning story. There were no collaborating witnesses, no supportive forensics, nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top