Casey Anthony

[Immanuel]

The prosecution has shown Casey's means, motive & opportunity. She has also been proven to be an habitual lier. The jury should always take her fathers word over hers. Her rape story is not even credible. She is going down.

Question for Kissmy, Oldsalt, Sarah G and anyone else that thinks she is going down.

Did you think OJ was going down for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Immie

THIS THREAD is about a beautiful little girl named Caylee Anthony who was murdered.
The O.J. Simpson trial has nothing to do with this case!
Why must you bring an old trial into this??
The Simpson thing is done, over..and he is sitting in prison for other charges, who the **** cares.
We all here, no matter what our opinions might be, just want justice for this little girl..that's it....do you get it??

Yes, I get it and I want the same thing.

Have you seen anywhere that I said that I hope Casey walks?

So, I ask you, did you think OJ would be found guilty or not? Are you any good at predicting the outcome of a court case? Get it?

Immie

 

[KissMy]

The prosecution has shown Casey's means, motive & opportunity. She has also been proven to be an habitual lier. The jury should always take her fathers word over hers. Her rape story is not even credible. She is going down.

Question for Kissmy, Oldsalt, Sarah G and anyone else that thinks she is going down.

Did you think OJ was going down for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Immie

THIS THREAD is about a beautiful little girl named Caylee Anthony who was murdered.
The O.J. Simpson trial has nothing to do with this case!
Why must you bring an old trial into this??
The Simpson thing is done, over..and he is sitting in prison for other charges, who the **** cares.
We all here, no matter what our opinions might be, just want justice for this little girl..that's it....do you get it??

The chloroform blew holes through the defense story. They screwed up by stating the drowning scenario with the opening statement. They are stuck with it. Her only hope is a mistrial.

 

[Immanuel]

There's a huge hole the defense can't explain away, that 31 day hole where she didn't report the child missing.

Granted. I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean they can't explain it. It seems to me that they initially tried to say that she was not missing those 31 days. Then again, it also seems the prosecution has proven that she was.

Immie

You can always put yourself in the shoes of the jury, they are you and me. If my child was missing, I would report it immediately. I wouldn't go shopping and dancing.

Nor would I! I'd probably be a frigging basket case, but that is just me.

The same goes for if she drowned in the pool. The first thing I would do is call 911. I'm not qualified to say whether or not someone is dead. I'd be screaming bloody murder to get paramedics there twenty minutes ago.

In fact, the "pool defense", raises more suspicion in me than anything I have seen from the prosecution. What the hell? You found your daughter face down in the pool and then just assumed she was dead? I don't buy it.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Not true, if you mean me. However, I think in this case, the circumstantial evidence can all be explained away and that is all that the defense must do. They don't have to find the real killer... um if it is not Casey.

As I said, I have not watched the trial, but from what I have seen the prosecution has not done their job very well. We will just have to wait and see.

Immie

Um, apparently you DID miss the DT's opening statement. They profess to know Caylee drowned in the family pool, an accident. According to them, they don't really have to explain away anything. Caylee is dead from an accident. And yes, the trial is still going to have to go on, because ICA, apparently, at this point, is the ONLY witness they have to testify to their so-called story, and she's a pathological liar. Doesn't look good for ICA, nor should it, based upon the evidence.

Okay, here is the point you seem not to understand. The trial is about whether or not Casey murdered Caylee. The Prosecution MUST prove that Casey murdered Caylee. The prosecution has spent 19 days trying to prove that Casey murdered Caylee. From everything I have seen, they have failed horribly. And if they failed, then she walks.

The Prosecution must prove that Caylee was murdered by Casey. The defense need only raise doubt in the minds of the jury that it was Casey that murdered Caylee which since there is no direct evidence linking Casey to the crime, it seems to me that they do not need to try very hard to achieve.

In opening statements the defense stated that Caylee drowned in the pool. The prosecution has proven that Caylee was murdered, but they have not proven that it was Casey that did it and the defense does not need to prove who killed her. They only need to raise reasonable doubt that it was Casey who did it.

That was why OJ walked. His defense team did not try to prove who murdered Nicole and Ron only raise doubts that it was OJ.

Oh, and they profess to know that she died in the pool. None of that has yet been introduced into evidence. The defense doesn't even need to mention the pool in their arguments if they don't want to.

The odor in the car? She forgot hamburger in her trunk for several days. It spoiled and the car still reeks.

The sticker and duct tape? No proof that it was Casey that put it on Caylee's mouth and suffocated her.

The tatoos? Makes the prosecution appear desperate.

The hair proved nothing.

What evidence besides "she's a pathological liar" do you point to that says... Casey Anthony killed her daughter and no one else possibly could have done it?

One of the red flags I feel is that Caylee was missing for so long. That leads me to suspicion of Casey, but, I have not heard anything that proves that it means that she murdered her daughter.

And for the record, I'm not saying you are wrong that she will be convicted. Only that from what I have heard, the prosecution has failed miserably. We can only wait to hear what the jury has to say about that.

Immie

Those are all the points I've made all along, but haven't posted here for several days, so I'm just now getting caught up. We don't know (yet) what Casey's reasoning might have been for lying for 31 days, but that should not have any bearing on her guilt unless there is solid proof that she was indeed riding all around town with her child's dead body in the trunk. Which I highly suspect is totally not true. She was covering up the truth as long as she could get away with it, but we don't know why.

I keep returning to a question even the Judge asked the prosecution at one point: "If Casey just wanted to be rid of the child so she could go out and party, why wouldn't she have just left Caylee with the grandparents?" (Implying why she would have KILLED HER instead?) The grandparents loved the child and would have happily raised her and let Casey do her own thing.

 

[oldsalt]

The defense has not presented their arguments yet. They laid out their defense in the opening statements, but those need not be their defense now that the prosecution has presented its case. Seems to me that what they need to do when they do start presenting their arguments is simply to say that the prosecution has proven they were wrong and that she was murdered, but that Casey did not murder Caylee. They don't even have to claim that it was Grandpa or that they even know who it was.

And no, I would not want to defend her. I think she's guilty. I just don't think it has been proven in court.

Immie

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

Seems to me though that if they did try to live by that, they will screw up. Seems to me, that they need to dump that idea as there is too much evidence that it was murder. The only problem being as to who it was that committed the murder.

Immie

If they dump it, they're screwed.

 

[Immanuel]

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

Seems to me though that if they did try to live by that, they will screw up. Seems to me, that they need to dump that idea as there is too much evidence that it was murder. The only problem being as to who it was that committed the murder.

Immie

If they dump it, they're screwed.

Then you seem to think they are screwed either way.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the Prosecution has done a better job than I realized or maybe the defense was incompetent from the beginning and dug a hole too deep to get out of.

I still don't think the prosecution has actually proven it was Casey that committed the murder. Maybe though, the defense did it for them?

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

Granted. I don't disagree with you, but that doesn't mean they can't explain it. It seems to me that they initially tried to say that she was not missing those 31 days. Then again, it also seems the prosecution has proven that she was.

Immie

You can always put yourself in the shoes of the jury, they are you and me. If my child was missing, I would report it immediately. I wouldn't go shopping and dancing.

Nor would I! I'd probably be a frigging basket case, but that is just me.

The same goes for if she drowned in the pool. The first thing I would do is call 911. I'm not qualified to say whether or not someone is dead. I'd be screaming bloody murder to get paramedics there twenty minutes ago.

In fact, the "pool defense", raises more suspicion in me than anything I have seen from the prosecution. What the hell? You found your daughter face down in the pool and then just assumed she was dead? I don't buy it.

Immie

If she drowned, why the duct tape? It had to be chloroform..

 

[MaggieMae]

But for whatever idiot got on the stand and says the foul odor was a pizza or rotted hamburger, there are experts who have proof that there was indeed a dead body in the trunk of that car. They found decomp fluid, the hair that was found in the trunk, it matched Caylee's and they even had one expert say there was a "stain" that was in the shape of a small child lying in a fetal position- in the trunk of Casey's car.
As for the red heart stickers, who in the hell is going to put one of those across that baby girl's mouth, if they didn't have feelings for her??
Not some stranger, not a meter reader....it had to be someone who lived in that home, and had access to those heart stickers. Which btw, those stickers were among Casey's belongings.

There's really no proof that it was a heart sticker at all. It was something that "resembled a piece of a heart shaped object." And then, of course, there's no CSI photo of it--just a mock up. I cracked up the other day listening to one of the get-Casey pundits almost peeing his pants over the heart-shaped image being approximately the size of a dime. "Oh LOOK!! A heart-shaped sticker [one of many sizes found in Casey's bedroom] IS the same size as a dime!" Well that was enough "proof" for that jerk!

 

[Immanuel]

You can always put yourself in the shoes of the jury, they are you and me. If my child was missing, I would report it immediately. I wouldn't go shopping and dancing.

Nor would I! I'd probably be a frigging basket case, but that is just me.

The same goes for if she drowned in the pool. The first thing I would do is call 911. I'm not qualified to say whether or not someone is dead. I'd be screaming bloody murder to get paramedics there twenty minutes ago.

In fact, the "pool defense", raises more suspicion in me than anything I have seen from the prosecution. What the hell? You found your daughter face down in the pool and then just assumed she was dead? I don't buy it.

Immie

If she drowned, why the duct tape? It had to be chloroform..

Hey!

I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.

I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.

Immie

 

[oldsalt]

Seems to me though that if they did try to live by that, they will screw up. Seems to me, that they need to dump that idea as there is too much evidence that it was murder. The only problem being as to who it was that committed the murder.

Immie

If they dump it, they're screwed.

Then you seem to think they are screwed either way.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the Prosecution has done a better job than I realized or maybe the defense was incompetent from the beginning and dug a hole too deep to get out of.

I still don't think the prosecution has actually proven it was Casey that committed the murder. Maybe though, the defense did it for them?

Immie

Beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe they have. We'll just have to differ in opinion.

 

[oldsalt]

Nor would I! I'd probably be a frigging basket case, but that is just me.

The same goes for if she drowned in the pool. The first thing I would do is call 911. I'm not qualified to say whether or not someone is dead. I'd be screaming bloody murder to get paramedics there twenty minutes ago.

In fact, the "pool defense", raises more suspicion in me than anything I have seen from the prosecution. What the hell? You found your daughter face down in the pool and then just assumed she was dead? I don't buy it.

Immie

If she drowned, why the duct tape? It had to be chloroform..

Hey!

I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.

I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.

Immie

Actually, when the DT puts out the explanation like that, they do have some proving to do, if they want any cred with the jury. If the DT had gone with, 'we don't know who killed Caylee, but neither does the Pros.....' that might have gone better with them.

 

[Immanuel]

If they dump it, they're screwed.

Then you seem to think they are screwed either way.

Maybe you are right. Maybe the Prosecution has done a better job than I realized or maybe the defense was incompetent from the beginning and dug a hole too deep to get out of.

I still don't think the prosecution has actually proven it was Casey that committed the murder. Maybe though, the defense did it for them?

Immie

Beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe they have. We'll just have to differ in opinion.

Please understand, I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I only asked the question a couple pages back because I was thinking that the prosecution has not proven its case.

I was looking for people such as yourself with a differing opinion.

I think she did it. I always have. I live in Central Florida and this has been a big issue around here ever since Caylee was reported missing.

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

Nor would I! I'd probably be a frigging basket case, but that is just me.

The same goes for if she drowned in the pool. The first thing I would do is call 911. I'm not qualified to say whether or not someone is dead. I'd be screaming bloody murder to get paramedics there twenty minutes ago.

In fact, the "pool defense", raises more suspicion in me than anything I have seen from the prosecution. What the hell? You found your daughter face down in the pool and then just assumed she was dead? I don't buy it.

Immie

If she drowned, why the duct tape? It had to be chloroform..

Hey!

I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.

I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.

Immie

Probable cause, I'm not dealing with motive right now. Wish that ***** would take the stand tho.

 

[Immanuel]

If she drowned, why the duct tape? It had to be chloroform..

Hey!

I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.

I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.

Immie

Actually, when the DT puts out the explanation like that, they do have some proving to do, if they want any cred with the jury. If the DT had gone with, 'we don't know who killed Caylee, but neither does the Pros.....' that might have gone better with them.

Ain't hindsight grand?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If she drowned, why the duct tape? It had to be chloroform..

Hey!

I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.

I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.

Immie

Probable cause, I'm not dealing with motive right now. Wish that ***** would take the stand tho.

But as the defense I don't have to deal with probable cause either. I just need to shoot holes in your "theories". I don't have to answer why the duct tape or chloroform. My reply would be, "How do I know why they were used, I didn't kill her."

Immie

 

[R.D.]

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

Seems to me though that if they did try to live by that, they will screw up. Seems to me, that they need to dump that idea as there is too much evidence that it was murder. The only problem being as to who it was that committed the murder.

Immie

Then the are done for.

They deny a body in the car, they tried numerous times to have it called accidental, they blamed George in a cover up of the accident, they denied the chloroform evidence, they denied duct tape on the baby, they tried to deny she was in the house for 6 months. All now evidence in the trial.

 

[Dabs]

Um, apparently you DID miss the DT's opening statement. They profess to know Caylee drowned in the family pool, an accident. According to them, they don't really have to explain away anything. Caylee is dead from an accident. And yes, the trial is still going to have to go on, because ICA, apparently, at this point, is the ONLY witness they have to testify to their so-called story, and she's a pathological liar. Doesn't look good for ICA, nor should it, based upon the evidence.

Okay, here is the point you seem not to understand. The trial is about whether or not Casey murdered Caylee. The Prosecution MUST prove that Casey murdered Caylee. The prosecution has spent 19 days trying to prove that Casey murdered Caylee. From everything I have seen, they have failed horribly. And if they failed, then she walks.

The Prosecution must prove that Caylee was murdered by Casey. The defense need only raise doubt in the minds of the jury that it was Casey that murdered Caylee which since there is no direct evidence linking Casey to the crime, it seems to me that they do not need to try very hard to achieve.

In opening statements the defense stated that Caylee drowned in the pool. The prosecution has proven that Caylee was murdered, but they have not proven that it was Casey that did it and the defense does not need to prove who killed her. They only need to raise reasonable doubt that it was Casey who did it.

That was why OJ walked. His defense team did not try to prove who murdered Nicole and Ron only raise doubts that it was OJ.

Oh, and they profess to know that she died in the pool. None of that has yet been introduced into evidence. The defense doesn't even need to mention the pool in their arguments if they don't want to.

The odor in the car? She forgot hamburger in her trunk for several days. It spoiled and the car still reeks.

The sticker and duct tape? No proof that it was Casey that put it on Caylee's mouth and suffocated her.

The tatoos? Makes the prosecution appear desperate.

The hair proved nothing.

What evidence besides "she's a pathological liar" do you point to that says... Casey Anthony killed her daughter and no one else possibly could have done it?

One of the red flags I feel is that Caylee was missing for so long. That leads me to suspicion of Casey, but, I have not heard anything that proves that it means that she murdered her daughter.

And for the record, I'm not saying you are wrong that she will be convicted. Only that from what I have heard, the prosecution has failed miserably. We can only wait to hear what the jury has to say about that.

Immie

Those are all the points I've made all along, but haven't posted here for several days, so I'm just now getting caught up. We don't know (yet) what Casey's reasoning might have been for lying for 31 days, but that should not have any bearing on her guilt unless there is solid proof that she was indeed riding all around town with her child's dead body in the trunk. Which I highly suspect is totally not true. She was covering up the truth as long as she could get away with it, but we don't know why.

I keep returning to a question even the Judge asked the prosecution at one point: "If Casey just wanted to be rid of the child so she could go out and party, why wouldn't she have just left Caylee with the grandparents?" (Implying why she would have KILLED HER instead?) The grandparents loved the child and would have happily raised her and let Casey do her own thing.

And I will answer the same as I did before when this very question was brought up.
Casey was not close to her parents, and whether people choose to believe it or not, young people, meaning George and Cindy's daughter Casey, can be a total bitches!
Maybe she did want rid of her daughter but at the same time, she didn't want her parents to have her either. You'd be surprised what people will do for spite. Casey may have thought, nobody will get Caylee ever. As I recall from earlier on, Casey didn't even want the child, she was going to give the baby away, but Cindy wouldn't hear of it.
So maybe Casey resented her Mother in some way for that, and she got back at her...just a theory, a thought.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Has the prosecution proven that Casey made those searches? Could someone else have had access to her computer?

And the T-Shirt? Have they proven it was Casey that put her in the T-Shirt after she died?

The prosecution has presented their case. Evidently they have proven Caylee was murdered. Now all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt that Casey was the killer. All they need to do is convince the jury that grandpa might have killed Caylee and tried to blame Casey.

Grandpa used Casey's computer to search for Chloroform and neck breaking because he had abused her and was afraid of being caught. He killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's car. He later discarded the body. Casey found out about it. He threatened to kill her thus her silence for 31 days. Being afraid of her father, Casey attempted to claim that Caylee drowned in the pool.

Would she be lying? I think so... but she only needs to raise reasonable doubt to save her ass. What do I think? She's a cold hearted ***** who murdered her daughter. I simply don't think the prosecution has done its job to prove that.

Immie

The prosecution has shown Casey's means, motive & opportunity. She has also been proven to be an habitual lier. The jury should always take her fathers word over hers. Her rape story is not even credible. She is going down.

Question for Kissmy, Oldsalt, Sarah G and anyone else that thinks she is going down.

Did you think OJ was going down for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Immie

I did at first. Until the prosecution started flubbing it. In this case I think the prosecution did a fairly good job. We'll have to see how they handle cross examination of whatever the defense brings up.

 

[Immanuel]

I think the prosecution did a great job.

The defense knew the States case, in their opening claims was their game plan. Assuming they will change it is news to me

Seems to me though that if they did try to live by that, they will screw up. Seems to me, that they need to dump that idea as there is too much evidence that it was murder. The only problem being as to who it was that committed the murder.

Immie

Then the are done for.

They deny a body in the car, they tried numerous times to have it called accidental, they blamed George in a cover up of the accident, they denied the chloroform evidence, they denied duct tape on the baby, they tried to deny she was in the house for 6 months. All now evidence in the trial.

When have they denied all that?

They have not presented their arguments yet. All that comes next, doesn't it?

Immie

 

[Sarah G]

Hey!

I'm the defense here remember? I don't have to explain why. That is your job.

I only have to raise enough doubt to convince the jury that it was done by someone else besides my client.

Immie

Probable cause, I'm not dealing with motive right now. Wish that ***** would take the stand tho.

But as the defense I don't have to deal with probable cause either. I just need to shoot holes in your "theories". I don't have to answer why the duct tape or chloroform. My reply would be, "How do I know why they were used, I didn't kill her."

Immie

They have to do a little more than that. They have to make her a sympathetic character by showing she was molested by daddy and that he is the one who tried to cover up her daughter's accidental drowning. I think the defense is drowning right now.