Replies

What would you require for “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

The body not being left out in the elements for months and months and months when the police were told that there was something in the area, for starters.

The police could have had that child's body when it was still a body and not a bunch of scattered bones. I find it utterly, inexplicably bizarre that there were three reports over three days of something odd, possibly a skull, in the area near where the grandparents lived, shortly after the child was reported missing, yet there was no search to speak of.

Casey Anthony Trial: Roy Kronk testifies about Caylee Anthony's remains

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/198927/19/Roy-Kronk-testifies-about-finding-Caylee-Anthonys-remains

Kronk said he called the Orange County Sheriff's Office when he got home to report possibly seeing a skull in the wooded area off Suburban Drive. He said he was told to call Crimeline, which he did, and he said he told Crimeline he saw an object that looked like it could have been a skull.

Kronk said the next day he returned to work as normal, but on Aug. 13, he called the Sheriff's Office again and was told an officer would meet him on Suburban Drive.

Kronk said two deputies arrived and he pointed to the area where he thought he saw an odd item. He emphasized that he did not say for sure the object was a skull. Records show the deputies found nothing at that time.

Kronk testified that the deputy was rude to him and dismissed his call. He said the deputy berated him for wasting his time.

When Kronk called the nonemergency 911 line, he told the dispatcher he saw something white, which appeared to be a skull, near a gray bag in an area near the Anthony family home.

What happened to that poor child's body in those months between August and December?

Did anyone touch the body?

Did anyone or anything move the body?

Was anything added to the area? Was anything removed from the area?

From testimony, we know that the bones were scattered. Did animals scatter the bones? Did a person scatter the bones?

Why, exactly, did the officer refuse to call in backup to look that day? This wasn't a random, anonymous tip. The lineman gave his name and stayed around for the police to show up, after having called the previous day, then stayed around some more while the officer yelled at him for wasting their time.

Why, exactly, was there no follow up?

Why, exactly, did the officer's supervisor not look into the multiple reports by a named source, of something, maybe a human skull, so close to the grandparent's house?

Was anyone disciplined for not doing a proper search?

If no one was disciplined, why not?

The best evidence the state could have had was totally ignored numerous times, until it was gone. Why was that, exactly?

I'm as sorry as anyone that a murderer probably walked yesterday, but I'm not about to give the benefit of the doubt to the state when it repeatedly refused to do even a minimally professional check of the exact area where the body was eventually found.

In August, there was almost certainly still tissue on the body. Tissue that could have been used to determine how that child died. In December, there were only scattered bones and the state couldn't say with certainty how she died. Searching for "chloroform" isn't evidence of how she died - the state threw that evidence away when they refused to search. A smell in the trunk isn't proof of the mother killing her.

The benefit of the doubt has to go to the defendant, regardless of how odious she is.