I wonder.

[George Costanza]

I think she's innocent

why?

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

 

[Dot Com]

I apologize for being snippy w/ you Willow but these daytime TeeVee- esque, missing white woman syndrome (MWWS) cases are a tempest in a teapot. There are more important things to address.

 

[Sarah G]

I think she's innocent

why?

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

Nobody makes an accident look like murder and she wouldn't need ductape if Caylee was already dead.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think she's innocent

why?

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

If the child died accidentally why was there duct tape on her mouth and face?

 

[chanel]

The jury got it wrong. It happens. I'd like to see an IQ test for all potential jurors and only one retarded one for each side. It seems to me they were all limited in intelligence.

 

[Dot Com]

let us remember that the jury can only decide based on the judge's instructions. The judge may have given them a narrow scope w/ which to rule on.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I think she's innocent

why?

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

"The Florida mother accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter partied, promoted nightclub events and even entered a swimsuit contest around the time the toddler disappeared, and the woman never appeared worried, depressed or angry, according to testimony Wednesday."



This is not how a doting mother behaves after an accidental drowning.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm still waiting on an explanation about the duct tape, why was duct tape on the babies face and mouth if she died accidentally?

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I'm still waiting on an explanation about the duct tape, why was duct tape on the babies face and mouth if she died accidentally?

Good point HG, it certainly seems to refute the accidental drowning scenario.

One can surmise that after Casey knocked her out with chloroform, she put duct tape over the mouth and nose to suffocate the child.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm still waiting on an explanation about the duct tape, why was duct tape on the babies face and mouth if she died accidentally?

Good point HG, it certainly seems to refute the accidental drowning scenario.

One can surmise that after Casey knocked her out with chloroform, she put duct tape over the mouth and nose to suffocate the child.

The child was murdered, I have never seen an accidental death where duct tape was used after the fact, this jury had no damn common sense. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Againsheila]

I think she's innocent

why?

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

So you don't believe she's guilty of murder, but you do believe she's guilty of hiding the body and perjury?

 

[Dot Com]

 

[George Costanza]

why?

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

So you don't believe she's guilty of murder, but you do believe she's guilty of hiding the body and perjury?

I don't believe they proved her guilty of murder. I think it is quite possible that the death was accidental, that she might have played some part in the death and that all of her lies were merely attempts to distance herself from that death. Guilty of hiding the body? Clearly. Guilty of perjury? She didn't testify. Perjury is lying under oath. Guilty of lying to the police? Obviously. She was convicted of that.

Guilty of being a totally despicable person? Clearly.

 

[George Costanza]

I'm still waiting on an explanation about the duct tape, why was duct tape on the babies face and mouth if she died accidentally?

I think this is the toughest part for the defense to explain. Even if my theory of accidental death and lies to distance herself from that death is true, fitting the duct tape in there is pretty hard to do. I think the jury just kind of slid over this one, relying on the fact that, in spite of the duct tape, there was no direct evidence linking her to the death.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll tell you why I think she is innocent. Suppose the child died an ACCIDENTAL death under circumstances that would cause Casey to be very fearful that, in spite of the fact that the death was accidental, the authorities might not see it that way, and might charge her with some type of crime, ranging anywhere from child neglect or child endangerment, all the way up to murder.

So Casey makes an attempt to distance herself from the accidental death and, in so doing, she creates this huge web of lies and fabrications which the prosecution now seeks to use to convince the jury that she is a murderer. She is clearly a liar. But there might have been a reason for the lies that does not involve murder.

And this alternative theory is equally as plausible, if not more so, than the theory of murder espoused by the prosecution in this case.

So you don't believe she's guilty of murder, but you do believe she's guilty of hiding the body and perjury?

I don't believe they proved her guilty of murder. I think it is quite possible that the death was accidental, that she might have played some part in the death and that all of her lies were merely attempts to distance herself from that death. Guilty of hiding the body? Clearly. Guilty of perjury? She didn't testify. Perjury is lying under oath. Guilty of lying to the police? Obviously. She was convicted of that.

Guilty of being a totally despicable person? Clearly.

Well George we are almost gonna agree on one here.

When the prosecution gave their closing argument, I heard a very strong case.

And when the defense gave their closing argument, it almost put me to sleep, but I was able to see the problem.

We have a defendant who appears to be sociopathic, dishonest, and intelligent enough to weave an impressive web of lies. And we have a dead child that the defendant seemed to be relieved was dead. But, for all we know, that was part of the lies to show that Casey was not concerned that her child was missing because she pretended not to know the child was dead.

And in the end, we don't have sufficient DNA evidence.
We don't have a murder weapon.
We don't know how, where, why, or when Caylee died.
There was nothing to tie Casey to Caylee's death other than what appears to us to be reprehensible behavior.

The Prosecution should never have gone for Murder One. They did not prove that Caylee was murdered and they did not prove that Casey did it.

Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But I don't think the prosecution proved it.

 

[George Costanza]

So you don't believe she's guilty of murder, but you do believe she's guilty of hiding the body and perjury?

I don't believe they proved her guilty of murder. I think it is quite possible that the death was accidental, that she might have played some part in the death and that all of her lies were merely attempts to distance herself from that death. Guilty of hiding the body? Clearly. Guilty of perjury? She didn't testify. Perjury is lying under oath. Guilty of lying to the police? Obviously. She was convicted of that.

Guilty of being a totally despicable person? Clearly.

Well George we are almost gonna agree on one here.

When the prosecution gave their closing argument, I heard a very strong case.

And when the defense gave their closing argument, it almost put me to sleep, but I was able to see the problem.

We have a defendant who appears to be sociopathic, dishonest, and intelligent enough to weave an impressive web of lies. And we have a dead child that the defendant seemed to be relieved was dead. But, for all we know, that was part of the lies to show that Casey was not concerned that her child was missing because she pretended not to know the child was dead.

And in the end, we don't have sufficient DNA evidence.
We don't have a murder weapon.
We don't know how, where, why, or when Caylee died.
There was nothing to tie Casey to Caylee's death other than what appears to us to be reprehensible behavior.

The Prosecution should never have gone for Murder One. They did not prove that Caylee was murdered and they did not prove that Casey did it.

Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But I don't think the prosecution proved it.

Don't forget - the prosecution did not go only for murder one. There was an out for the jury - aggravated manslaughter. The smart prosecutor will put something like that in there as a possible compromise if the jury is deadlocked with some for murder one and some for not guilty. Didn't work here.

 

[chanel]

George - I don't think the retarded jurors understood that. She didn't even get slapped with endangerment.

I fear the bigger issue here is our jury system. Smart people generally get out of jury duty.

 

[Valerie]

I didn't pay one bit of attention to this story leading up to the trial so I was pretty clueless until the verdict came in and I started asking questions. From what I've heard the mother was sexually abused by her father. I also heard this man, the grandfather, helped to bury the body which had this inexplicable duct tape... So it occurred to me, I wonder if the grandfather was molesting that baby and that somehow played into all the lies and craziness........?

 

[WillowTree]

So you don't believe she's guilty of murder, but you do believe she's guilty of hiding the body and perjury?

I don't believe they proved her guilty of murder. I think it is quite possible that the death was accidental, that she might have played some part in the death and that all of her lies were merely attempts to distance herself from that death. Guilty of hiding the body? Clearly. Guilty of perjury? She didn't testify. Perjury is lying under oath. Guilty of lying to the police? Obviously. She was convicted of that.

Guilty of being a totally despicable person? Clearly.

Well George we are almost gonna agree on one here.

When the prosecution gave their closing argument, I heard a very strong case.

And when the defense gave their closing argument, it almost put me to sleep, but I was able to see the problem.

We have a defendant who appears to be sociopathic, dishonest, and intelligent enough to weave an impressive web of lies. And we have a dead child that the defendant seemed to be relieved was dead. But, for all we know, that was part of the lies to show that Casey was not concerned that her child was missing because she pretended not to know the child was dead.

And in the end, we don't have sufficient DNA evidence.
We don't have a murder weapon.
We don't know how, where, why, or when Caylee died.
There was nothing to tie Casey to Caylee's death other than what appears to us to be reprehensible behavior.

The Prosecution should never have gone for Murder One. They did not prove that Caylee was murdered and they did not prove that Casey did it.

Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But I don't think the prosecution proved it.

Ya know don't you that once upon a time a case of "reasonable" doubt could be proved without a body, without DNA.. We should turn Charlie Manson loose.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe they proved her guilty of murder. I think it is quite possible that the death was accidental, that she might have played some part in the death and that all of her lies were merely attempts to distance herself from that death. Guilty of hiding the body? Clearly. Guilty of perjury? She didn't testify. Perjury is lying under oath. Guilty of lying to the police? Obviously. She was convicted of that.

Guilty of being a totally despicable person? Clearly.

Well George we are almost gonna agree on one here.

When the prosecution gave their closing argument, I heard a very strong case.

And when the defense gave their closing argument, it almost put me to sleep, but I was able to see the problem.

We have a defendant who appears to be sociopathic, dishonest, and intelligent enough to weave an impressive web of lies. And we have a dead child that the defendant seemed to be relieved was dead. But, for all we know, that was part of the lies to show that Casey was not concerned that her child was missing because she pretended not to know the child was dead.

And in the end, we don't have sufficient DNA evidence.
We don't have a murder weapon.
We don't know how, where, why, or when Caylee died.
There was nothing to tie Casey to Caylee's death other than what appears to us to be reprehensible behavior.

The Prosecution should never have gone for Murder One. They did not prove that Caylee was murdered and they did not prove that Casey did it.

Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But I don't think the prosecution proved it.

Don't forget - the prosecution did not go only for murder one. There was an out for the jury - aggravated manslaughter. The smart prosecutor will put something like that in there as a possible compromise if the jury is deadlocked with some for murder one and some for not guilty. Didn't work here.

I know, but there had to be something, anything, to prove Casey was involved with the death in order to get manslaughter of any degree. The prosecution proved Casey is a reprehensible person, but they did not prove she did it. How she did it. Where she did it. Why she did it. Nothing.

But child endangerment? Yes, if Casey did not report the disappearance of a child, that would apply. But being afraid to report a dead child? That removes endangerment.

Usually we can say the system works. But sometimes it just doesn't. This time in my opinion it didn't. It still beats any other system in the world.