Posted on 07/05/2011 7:27:58 AM PDT by freebird5850
I had never heard that theory from the police- do you have a link for it? This wasn’t something they tried to prove in court- and the needle was not introduced as evidence- and I never understood what testosterone would be doing mixed with chloroform anyway? Weird.
Meanwhile- there was a witness at the Walmart in Casselberry (few miles from her house) who had waited on her the week before and said in his deposition he again saw Caylee and Casey on the 16th in the afternoon...don’t know if he testified in the trial however.
I suspect like most parents that the dad was the disciplinarian and the mom the nurturer. They probably played out a version of good cop/bad cop...with the roles reversing on occasion. These parents either raised a sociopath or have had to deal with one for years. Talk about stress. Perhaps Cindy couldn’t give up on her child so she let George off the hook and he let her. They had to be careful, as now there was Caylee to think of. And I am sure Casey played that angle for all it’s worth.
Since there was no evidence presented of child molestation, I am going to discount all that as a way to get Casey off. Jose Baez is not above a few lies to get Casey off. And certainly Casey isn’t either as all she did was lie.
That’s interesting. Did she reject it because she knew she didn’t do it? or because she was that confident of her defense team? She’d prefer to face the death penalty than plea bargain? That’s either arrogance or innocence.
I don’t think anyone will ever know the truth. It will continue to hold the interest of the public & media because when a mystery is never solved it holds our imaginations. (The grassy knoll. Area51. Princess Di. The Lindbergh baby.)
“IS it reasonable to have a defense in opening statement claim they will show that George molested her, stuck his ..... in her mouth in the morning and then sent her off to school. NOT one shred of evidence was presented that George ever laid a hand or touch her in any of the criminal acts he was accused of doing. This little lying stealing itch attempted to destroy her father and apparently the jury found the accusations without any evidence as ‘reasonable’.”
You’re misreading the decision reached by the jury. Just because they vote to acquit doesn’t mean they gave credence to the defense’s claims. It merely means they rejected the prosecution for inadequate proof. They could all think the defense was full of irrelevant $h1+ but it wouldn’t matter. It’s only what the prosecution does and does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that matters. The doubt need not be caused by the defense’s claim; there need merely be a reasonable hole in the theory or evidence presented by the prosecution. The jury found one.
No matter what your view is, the prosecutors did not prove to even ONE of the jurors “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Casey was guilty of counts 1, 2, or 3. Not one single person of the 12 jurors (and we can also include alternate juror #14 as agreeing with them) thought that the prosecutors proved even one of those 3 charges merited their “yea” vote. To convict, they needed to a full 12 yea’s. The prosecution did not even get close to proving their case. Prosecutors greatly overreached in what they charged her with, given the evidence. The evidence did not support those charges. Prima facie: the jurors’ views trump all else.
If they had charged her with even one minor charge such as neglecting her child by, for example, “failing to call authorities in to investigate when she was missing”, and tuned evidence in such a manner as to convict at least on that charge, they would have achieved that conviction. The jurors would have agreed on that. They probably could have agreed on some things more egregious than that. The prosecution foolishly decided to demand that each of 12 jurors be convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she knowingly and intentionally killed her child when all the evidence they had of murder was vapor. Not one of the jurors believes the prosecution met the standard - not one!
The prosecution greatly overreached. The evidence is indisputable - all anyone needs to accept that truth is the jury’s decision.
Speaking of Mason - there’s a great photo of him on a link from Drudge where he’s flipping off reporters while he’s partying hard after the verdict...
classy guy....
I think that was the biggest problem the jury.The defence wanted an ignorant jury that could be easily led and that is what they sat.They seemed to ahve the same thought as I’ve seen voiced here that reasonable doubt equals no doubt which is not at all what that means.
Agree completely with everything you said.
A bit of REALITY here. The state presented the evidence, WHO had the custody of that child WHEN she went missing by Casey's own words. THAT was never challenged or given any 'reasonable' doubt. From that point forward who knows what is considered 'reasonable' doubt.
“I always suspected Sean Hannity was the most intellectually challenged conservative talk-show host. Tonight he confirmed it in my mind.”
LOL, my wife is done with him...she heard his total lack of ability to think rationally and became ill.
She listened to his radio show. I watched him on TV last night...and I’m done with his dumbass too. His cliche’s have become monotonous anyway.
Those letters have a definite creep factor.
Does anyone know why he is signs his letters Dad/PapaJoe? Weird.
Hate to admit but it was from the National Enquirer. Don’t know if it is still there. Sometimes you have to pick the gold out. Of course, they had also reported Casey being pregnant alluding that Jose is he father which, of course, I don’t believe.
One thing I feel certain about the police usually have a lot of experience in these matters.
Anyone else secretly hoping the judge keeps her locked up for as long as he can?
“A bit of REALITY here. The state presented the evidence, WHO had the custody of that child WHEN she went missing by Casey’s own words. THAT was never challenged or given any ‘reasonable’ doubt. From that point forward who knows what is considered ‘reasonable’ doubt”
Ok so let’s illustrate something then:
You and I are in a room with say 20 other people. Everyone else is across the room. You and I are over in a corner. Power goes out. Whole room turns dark. When the lights are back on you are over across the room with the rest of the group and I lay dead on the floor from a cause unknown. Does that mean, with no reasonable doubt- 95-99% certainty- that you killed me? Nope. Could have been natural causes. Could have been someone else. Could have been a whole host of things.
Applying this to the Anthony case- the mere fact she was in custody of Caylee when she went missing is hardly enough. And the duck tape and bag could just as easily be explained as efforts to hide her dead body after someone else killed her or after she had an accidental death. As far as I am concerned Casey probably did kill her but there’s not nearly enough in just the evidence presented to prove it.
No evidence whatsoever to support my conjecture.
As I noted, I have deliberately not paid much attention to the case as the murder was so extremely offensive to me. It’s the sort of thing I can easily get very outraged over.
I just pontificated from very little info about the case. I can be wrong in a list of ways.
*Casey had custody of Caylee
You’re welcome.
I don’t usually like to pontificate about things I know so little about.
However, you’re a dear and the case’s issues are important.
God bless you and those you love.
I think Caylee called him JoJo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.