Guilty verdict - there was ENOUGH evidence!

[cyberdude558]

Does it make any more logical sense that Casey killed her kid by suffocating her with duct tape, threw the baby in the trunk, went out and partied. Then the car started to smell, so she then burried her in the woods....then waited a month to report the child missing?

That's got to be the most poorly-planned pre-meditated murder I've ever heard of. The only motive the state could provide was that Casey wanted to party without the child holding her back. The problem with that motive is that she partied all the time anyway.

The much more logical scenario is some type of accident occured. Maybe because she didnt have a job, she couldnt afford a babysitter. She and Cindy were not getting along so she couldnt ask her mom to watch the kid. So she used chloroform or some type of drug to try to knock Caylee out. Only she used too much and ended up killing her. Even though she didnt mean to kill the child, her actions make her directly responsible. That would be aggravated manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder. So she obviously didnt want to call the cops at this point. She tried to continue with her life as if the death never happened. Now this scenario makes sense. This would also explain the traces of chloroform found in the trunk of the car.
So what about the duct tape you ask? Well according to Dr. Michael Baden (a well-known forensic pathologist), within 24 hours of a person dying, the body's internal structures begin breaking down. As you know, the human body is made of 60% water. So soon the tissues no longer hold this fluid very well and it could begin to exit the body through the various orifices...especially the nose and the mouth. So it's possible that when Casey saw this occuring, she placed duct tape over the child's nose and mouth in an attempt to keep the fluid in.

So why didnt the prosecution go with this theory? Because that kind of thing would probably not result in the death penalty. She didnt intend to kill the child. It was an accident that was her fault. The sentence would be 30 years to life. And most juries would probably be OK with that. The public wanted death. The lynch mob was loud and clear. And the whole duct tape story sounds oh so much more sinister. The problem was, they couldnt prove it. They could not prove the duct tape was the murder weapon. And the state never really did find an explaination for the choloroform.

[OneTruth]

IMO you are 100% on the right track^^^. That is probably what did happen and seems most logical to me as well.

If I was on the jury I would however have convicted on murder 1 under the law - that she placed a low value on a human life to an extreme degree. She may be a born party girl, liar, and come from a dysfunctional family, but that doesnt exscuse her reaction to her killing (accidentally) her own flesh and blood. Then her behavior after is appallingly horrid. Murder 1 is not unjust...in her case IMO.

[NovaBuc]

As has been stated previously, you cannot convict for murder in the first degree if there is no evidence of murder (child dying accidentally is not murder) and no evidence of it being planned beforehand (premeditation). You might want to convict based upon what you believe, but that is not supposed to be the way our legal system works - especially in cases that carry the death penalty.In this case, don't be angry at the jury.. the prosecution, and possibly to some extent the police investigating the case, presented a damn piss poor case that essentially seemed to be based upon the fact Casey Anthony was already convicted in the court of public opinion. They could not prove how the child died (granted, this was in part due to the fact the body was not found for some time..), could not prove it had been planned beforehand (sorry, a google search for chloroform on a computer others had access too is not enough evidence of planning.. finding a receipt for purchase of it or the chemicals to make it would be).If the death was accidental, then outside of it being committed during another felony act (I can't recall if Florida is one of the states with a felony murder law or not), based upon the evidence they had they should not have gone after a murder 1 conviction. This case is a classic example of what the Founding Fathers wanted in our legal system.. one where it is better to let the guilty go free rather than convict the innocent. Remember, prospective members of a jury have to have the mindset that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Simply put, the case the prosecution presented (and how the defense handled the case) left too much room for doubt. I figured their case was sunk when they couldn't really tell how Caylee had died. Without the ability to prove that, it is extremely hard to say guilty of murder if the prosecution can't come up with other compelling evidence. Just because Casey was a piss poor mother does not go far enough to say Caylee was murdered and that there was a willful intent and premeditation.

 But I suspect you will continue to be judge, jury and executioner in this case because you have a preconceived notion of what happened and what you feel is just.

[OneTruth]

as has been stated previously - yes you can. And as expected you think your demented opinion of justice is correct.

[NovaBuc]

Actually, no you can't. Even by your definitions. The law is the law, unless you can get the state to change what murder in the first degree is in Florida to fit your opinion, then the prosecution's case was very flimsy and based entirely on circumstantial evidence that the defense raised very good points to cast doubt upon the evidence. The prosecution didn't meet the burden of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. While I can appreciate you might think differently, your opinion on the matter (nor mine really) changes the written law for murder in the first degree.

 Don't believe me or the rest of the folks here, go read the Florida statutes on murder here: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/782.04

 I'll quote the relevant section for you:

 

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.

 The prosecution did not manage to cover any of those bases. Not a single one since they could not even prove she was murdered. Accidental death is not murder no matter how much you would like it to be, unless it happens in the course of a felony - in this case none of which Casey Anthony was charged with. I'll bow out of this conversation after this post, this seems like another case of you refusing to see the facts do not support your opinion/belief so those that point it out to you must be 'demented', agents of the illuminati or some such.

[OneTruth]

what are you ...14? did you even bother to read the initial post of this thread and the link provided.
Well, in there is a federal judge with 17 years on the bench stating there was plenty enough evidence to convict. I doubt your legal expertise overshadow his.

So again it has been stated many times - yes you can. Youre not very smart ~ just another loud mouth windbag banging his own drum.

[OneTruth]

then the prosecution's case was very flimsy and based entirely on circumstantial evidence

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



that is all you need sir. That is the problem with this country of nonbelievers - they place no value on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is as crucial as direct evidence.

[dalbuc]

The much more logical scenario is some type of accident occured. Maybe because she didnt have a job, she couldnt afford a babysitter. She and Cindy were not getting along so she couldnt ask her mom to watch the kid. So she used chloroform or some type of drug to try to knock Caylee out. Only she used too much and ended up killing her. Even though she didnt mean to kill the child, her actions make her directly responsible. That would be aggravated manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder. So she obviously didnt want to call the cops at this point. She tried to continue with her life as if the death never happened. Now this scenario makes sense. This would also explain the traces of chloroform found in the trunk of the car.
So what about the duct tape you ask? Well according to Dr. Michael Baden (a well-known forensic pathologist), within 24 hours of a person dying, the body's internal structures begin breaking down. As you know, the human body is made of 60% water. So soon the tissues no longer hold this fluid very well and it could begin to exit the body through the various orifices...especially the nose and the mouth. So it's possible that when Casey saw this occuring, she placed duct tape over the child's nose and mouth in an attempt to keep the fluid in.

That is the most tortured scenario I've ever heard in my life.  The easier "she's a sociopath and killed the child" doesn't require as many improbable twists and turns. She duct taped her mouth to seal her fluids in? What?? That's not trying to cause reasonable doubt but "any" doubt.

Toss in that, depending on FL law but most work this way, if she's trying to chloroform her daughter that's a felony child abuse state the fact that she died during that act means that she died during commission of a felony = first degree murder.

[cyberdude558]

Well the fact that we have so many different scenarios shows how weak the prosecution's case really is.

Jury was in the same situation. They couldnt even all agree on how the child died.

[OneTruth]

there are not any scenarios except for the ones you are inventing.

[cyberdude558]

We would not be inventing scenarios if the prosecution would have proven theirs to be accurate. Unfortunately their version isnt any more accurate than anyone elses.

[Biggs3535]

what are you ...14?

Are you trying to take the title of Numbskull Poster of the Forum away from Morgan/Oma?

[NovaBuc]

what are you ...14? did you even bother to read the initial post of this thread and the link provided.
Well, in there is a federal judge with 17 years on the bench stating there was plenty enough evidence to convict. I doubt your legal expertise overshadow his.

So again it has been stated many times - yes you can. Youre not very smart ~ just another loud mouth windbag banging his own drum.

 Against my better judgement, I'll comment one more time on this..

 I don't think you have read your own linked article, particularly this quote you lifted from it:

was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges.

 And you really need to consider this part of the quoted jury instructions the judge cites:

There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, evidence from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. There is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence

 Your source judge states what several people have been saying. The evidence wasn't enough to find her guilty of murder in the first degree, which requires premeditation. The problem is the prosecution hung their hat on the murder in the first degree charge. Based upon the juror's interviews, I don't doubt they would return the same verdict or at best be a hung jury even if they had been instructed to weigh circumstantial evidence the same as direct evidence as long as the charge was murder in the first degree. As soon as the prosecution dropped the child abuse charge, they couldn't go for felony murder. Without credible evidence of premeditation, they shouldn't have gone for murder in the first. They had a decent chance at a lesser murder or manslaughter charge.. but not murder in the first.

 As far as my age or intelligence, well.. suffice to say you are quite a bit off on both counts.

 *edited to fix quote

[Booker]

Did he just say nonbelievers are to blame?