My heart goes out to little Caylee Anthony, but...

This!

If one of my kids disappeared, I'd be like a dog shittin' peach seeds every day of my life until he/she is found.

Casey Anthony took a month to finally admit that Caylee was missing. In the meantime, she's out partying, dancing, having sex, getting a tattoo (Bella Vita - Beautiful Life) and just generally having a big ol' time.



Even the worst of parents and greatest of idiots would have to see that there's something wrong with that picture.

So Garamet, why didn't you get it?

My opinion is everyone in the family had some part in killing that child. Then Casey's parent's didn't like the idea that they lost control of one of their victims, so they set her up for the fall.

Because she's convinced herself she's so much smarter and morally superior than the morons in flyover country.

I'm leaning towards "second gunman" myself.

Or, it's entirely possible that she actually died from an accident (be it in the pool or some other way). That family is crazy enough that the rest of it actually makes sense. I can totally see them plotting a tangled web of lies and deceits to "cover up" an accidental death.

How do you draw conclusions about people's behavior? Possibly by observing it over a long period of time? The public always "knows" guilt or innocence in a high-profile case long before it goes to trial. Try to pay attention.

Were you a witness to these events, or are you going by what Nancy Grace, et al. have been feeding you all along? Were you perhaps in the courtroom during the trial? No?

What's the basis of your judgment, then?

What garamet knows is what Elwood knows...there is no way for those of us outside the case to have any real understanding of the facts presented. Therefore there's no way for those of us outside the case to know whether she was guilty or not.

My comments are based solely on observing the media frenzy and the number of Americans who knew no more about the case than you or I who "knew" she was guilty. And I've observed this behavior over the course of numerous high-profile cases, not just this one.

Apparently you thought I meant something else.

Of course it does. I would have convicted without hesitation. Nobody on that jury would have talked me out of it. Baby missing for a month without being reported while mother is living it up and partying, and once confronted every other word out of her mouth is a lie? Bitch is guilty of something very very bad.

And I can even imagine how this poor misunderstood girl is just a victim of circumstances, but that would not be reasonable doubt. If anything it's unreasonable doubt undermining a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

We have turned "reasonable doubt" into a requirement for airtight proof. It's one thing when you have a body and no idea who killed it -- you need compelling evidence before you can attach the crime to a specific individual.

But the universe of potential killers is much smaller in the case of a little kid living alone with her mom -- a mom who has all kinds of problems, and who's caught up in all kinds of lies.

It would be unreasonable to think Casey Anthony didn't do this. And that doubt, by definition, would not be reasonable.

Juries are required by law to go on evidence heard at trial. If you go beyond that you're in violation of the law and not doing justice.

It's not even possible in your head that maybe the little girl died in an accident and Casey knew about it the whole time and was scheming with her family to cover it up? Her parents are real pieces of work and Casey is batshit nuts. I don't have any problem envisioning that scenario at all.

I got all of that. What makes you think I didn't? But you can't specify with absolute certainty that you know exactly what that "something wrong" is.

All we can do is speculate.

Again, since I haven't followed the case as closely as you have, I may not have all the details. Do you know the exact C.O.D.? It's my understanding that the remains were too decomposed to determine that.

Do you know what was in Casey's mind the day her daughter died? Did she plan on killing her or just shutting her up? The many gradations in between are the difference between murder, manslaughter, and accidental death.

You seem so certain you know exactly what happened based on post hoc behavior.

One would think, based on your professional experience, that you'd be aware of broad variations in people's behaviors following trauma. That's why your reactions in particular surprise me.

Suppose she accidentally killed Caylee. Would her behavior be any different than if she'd deliberately killed her? Can you say for an absolute certainty that you - based on Nancy Grace's filtering of the information available to you - know what happened the day Caylee died?

That's all I'm saying. Don't try to twist it into anything else.

An accidental death doesn't explain duck tape over her mouth.

The only "accident" would be that their abuse finally went over the edge.

No one knows what really happened and the whole family is fucking nuts and capable of having caused her death. Given that and the lack of physical evidence there was no way for that jury to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sad but true.

QFT.

Don't confuse the law with justice.

That is exactly what I'm talking about -- of course it's possible. But it's not reasonable. "Reasonable doubt" seems to have morphed into "if I can imagine another explanation I must acquit." That's not what it is, not what it's supposed to be.

Reasonable doubt is supposed to be, "I'm a reasonable person, and I doubt it happened as charged." Or perhaps even, "Could a reasonable person, when faced with this evidence, conclude that something else happened?"

Reasonable doubt is not about imagining an alternative explanation that can't be disproven. It's also about whether that explanation is reasonable. Do you know any reasonable people who really think this has all just been a cover up for a perfectly innocent accident??? (And sedating your kid so you can go out partying is not "innocent.")

There's obviously no doubt the child is dead. The doubt is who killed her. I don't doubt Casey knew her daughter was dead. But, anyone of those four people could have been the killer.

So, because Casey likes to party, she needs to pay for her father's/mother's/brother's(?) crime?

Maybe she started partying (drinking heavily) to forget.

We don't know which of those people killed that little girl. All we know is that someone did.

I agree with what one of the legal commentators said

"Circumstantial evidence is still evidence"

And I don't remember where I heard it, but I've heard before that in two thirds of murder convictions, there is no murder weapon found.

And also the vast majority of murder convictions occur with no third party witnesses available to testify.


A question that occurrs to me is this:

What does everyone here consider to be "reasonable doubt"?

One of the judges appearing on FoxNews said that even elite lawyers have trouble accurately defining "reasonable doubt".

For me "reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt whatsoever".

All nice. Now ask yourself this. In how many circumstantial murder cases can the prosecution not say how or when the victim died? In how man cases can they also not come up with a really good motive? Finally in how many of those cases is the whole family batshit crazy?

I'm guessing you won't find many if any cases that match all that.

Yep, that's why she took a month to report her missing -they were buying time to scheme.

As far as a jury can only go off the evidence presented, isn't there quite a bit of leeway for interpretation? If there wasn't, then everyone would vote (think) the same way right off the bat.

I was wondering if anyone was going to make this comparison

I agree with the first part of that. I don't know why the media is getting so worked up over this trial.

The rest of it is typical Rush bullshit.

Reasonable doubt is what you would act on in the most important of your own affairs. It does not mean freedom from all doubt? Is it possible that Jack the Ripper is a time traveller who decided to switch from prostitutes to little girls. Maybe, but not reasonably. Is it possible that someone besides Casey did it? When you add it all up with no proof of means, motive or opportunity that points to her to the exclusion of all others there is reasonable doubt all over this case. She might have done it. Someone else is just as likely to have done it. That's reasonable doubt.

Here's where reason kicks in:
Option A. Child is dead. Mother is involved, and is attempting to conceal it from everyone else.

Option B. Multiple people are aware that the child is dead, and even though the mother is not responsible, she is concealing someone else's crime. Apparently by hanging out at nightclubs and getting tattoos.

You're saying the possibility of Option B creates "reasonable doubt" that Option A is true. Reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony is guilty of manslaughter?

How many reasonable people do you know that believe Casey Anthony's potential involvement in Option B instead of Option A -- as Caylee's sole legal guardian and protector -- excuses her from a manslaughter conviction?

Option C: Caylee while with her grandfather (who tried to commit suicide while the girl was still missing) killed her or she died while with him and batshit crazy Casey did not handle it properly. What would she be guilty of then?

This is not very farfetched with that wacko bunch.

Manslaughter and Accessory to a murder were not options given to the jury.

Had the prosecuter given any of those options, she wouldn't be free.

Huh? Say why...what?

Casey was acquitted of a manslaughter charge.

That's not Option C. That's Option B. And yes, it is far-fetched, because it was in the same heap of bullshit that said the meter-reader did it, or that Casey's brother was Caylee's father, or that the baby drowned.

If the defense actually believed something else happened, they should have put that on the table. But a litany of alternative theories is not proof that the most obvious explanation was incorrect. And most of those theories still implicate Casey anyway. The bitch dumped her baby's body in the woods, FFS.

And, yet you have no filthy words to say about hte baby's grandparents or her father?

Why should I? The grandparents did exactly what innocent grandparents could be expected to do. I didn't see them hanging out at nightclubs, or concealing the baby's absence -- did you???