First of all, before I go on I want to make it clear, this is an academic discussion for me, and I take it you're in the same frame of mind. If not, that's okay.
I appreciate the response, but we're going to continue to disagree here.
But none of that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed the kid. It proves quite well that she’s no good and did something wrong, but what’s something.
Murder cases are not always pinned down to the point that every question is answered. In this case we know that the child died at her own residence. We know that grandma and grandpa had no idea where the kid was. Grandma finally calls in the police after Casey fails to produce the child or explain where she is. At that point, Casey says she doesn't have anything to talk to the police about. No, she doesn't, and the natural presumption is that she already knows where the kid is and what happened to her.
What other conclusion could there be that explains this type of response on Casey's part? She won't tell mom or dad where Caylee is. She's not interested in looking for her. She's partying around at night. She's not interested in calling in the police. She evidences no concern for the child at all. She won't talk to the police once mom does call them.
She did the kid in, and truly not only doesn't need the police, she wants nothing to do with them. Why? She knows that she will be implicated within minutes of conversing with the police. Once again, why? Because the preponderance of evidence even then early on makes her suspect number one.
<>1. Why didn't you call 911?
2. Why didn't you call the paramedics or the police?
3. Why didn't you contact a mortuary?
4. Why didn't you talk to your parents about it?
5. Why didn't you seek to find Caylee?
6. Why didn't you seek help to find Caylee?
7. Why would you go out and party down while your little girl was missing?
8. Why would you get a celebratory tattoo when your child had been missing for weeks, "the Good Life"?
There have been murder cases made when there wasn't a body. The answers of what and when are not always pinned down.
At one point, you have to come to the conclusion that Casey is the one that was acting so absurdly, that there isn't any other explanation for that behavior, except guilt for the child's death.
You state that this proves to you that she was no good and did something wrong. Then you ask, but what was that something? Someone was responsible for Caylee's death. Only one person shows the classic signs of being guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only one person knew what happened to Caylee. Only one person failed to show any concern for the child.
What was that something? You tell me. What could cause Casey to act this way? Who else could have killed the child. The parents called the police. Casey was the only one left.
When being a jury member for a murder 1 trial you’re called upon to decide whether or not there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately and premeditately killed the deceased. When the prosecutor then stands up and says “we don’t know how she died, we don’t know when she died, but we do know somebody in the house killed her” (and pay extra not to the word “somebody” he didn’t say Casey) that’s a far cry from saying Casey deliberately and with pre-meditation killed the kid.
The prosecuting attorney already made the case that only one person benefitted from Caylee's death. He already made the case that only one person in the house didn't want to talk to the police about it. Only one person in the family went out and got a tattoo that said, "the Good Life", even though their loved one was missing. Only one person looked up the chloroform and neck breaking data on the internet. Mom's lying aside, this would only fit Casey to a tee. It took place just prior to the murder. As a juror I would dismiss mom's testimony completely. This points to premeditation. The fact that Casey celebrated her freedom by obtaining a tattoo that heralded it, closes that circle. It's the motive.
Really the problem here is the prosecutor overreached. If you can’t manage to pin down a cause of death you’ll never get a 1st degree murder conviction. Had the prosecutor gone for negligent homicide he would have gotten a conviction. That’s the gap between being able to clearly show somebody did “something” wrong and being able to show that they deliberately killed someone. All of what you point out is evidence of the first, none of it is evidence of the second. Did the jury convict for a lessor charge here? No. There were three or four serious murder/manslaughter charges the jury could have picked if they didn't want to pull the trigger on murder one. This jury dismissed the evidence. They ignored what was presented to them, to come up with one of the most lame-brained jury determinations I've ever heard.
<>1. You've got a dead child with duct tape over their mouth
2. You have a mom who was looking up ways to kill someone
3. Within days the child is dead
4. Casey didn't call 911, paramedics or the police
5. Casey sought to pass off the disappearnce on a baby sitter, the ex, her father, and finally as an accident
6. The accident story means that Casey was the adult on scene. Nobody else was there.
7. Casey couldn't tell her folks where Calee was
8. Casey wouldn't call the police even weeks later
9. Casey wouldn't talk to the police when mom got them on the phone.
10. Casey never did show an interest in finding Calee
11. Casey even showed a type of celebratory demeanor while the child was still missing
This causes you to merely think Casey did something wrong, but you don't know what it was. Okay, if you says so.
When a child dies from an accident, there is a set of things that people do. Not one thing that Casey did fit into that set of things. Why, if she didn't end that kid's life?
That’s NOT how people are being cast. That’s my point. Nobody is calling them that, nobody is implying it, you’re the only one saying it. If the media were doing that they’d be calling THEMSELVES simpletons since they’re the ones that have spent the last few years telling everybody Casey is guilty, it’s a slamdunk case, and her lawyer is an idiot.
That is how people are being cast. Look at the first few sentences of this article. There you will find people who think Casey is guilty being described in terms that wouldn't lend itself to any other interpretation. Read this:
Many who watched the trial on TV – and who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence, the punditry of various talking heads, or the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony – have been critical of the jury's verdict.
This wording of this presentation infers a general unified perception.
Many who watched the trial on TV and...
1. ...who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissble evidence
2. ...who were not constrained from taking into account the punditry of various talking heads
3. ...who were not constrained from taking into account the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony
...have been critical of the jury's verdict.
Excuse me, but I don't see any other category presented that addresses people who only saw the evidence submitted in court and didn't submit themselves to the things listed in 1 through 3 above.
I don't see any place where it is admitted that there was evidence presented in court that could cause reasonable people to come to a different conclusion.
For that reason, it's perfectly clear that this presentation makes the case that anyone not agreeing with the verdict, is using flawed (simpleton's) logic.
There is an effort here to trash dismiss people who do not agree with the verdict.
If you wish to deny that until the end of time, it won't change the reality I have pointed out.