Log in

View Full Version : Caylee Anthony murder case



Pages : 1 [2]

michele11
07-06-2011, 04:06 PM
Yeah hair in the trunk that was caylees thhat showed signs of decomposition, cadaver dogs hitting on the back yard and trunk. They convicted scott peterson on less.

yoda57us
07-06-2011, 04:17 PM
I'm saying they got off for different reasons. OJ got off because of jury nullification despite overwhelming evidence. Caylee got off because, quite simply, there was not sufficient evidence to convict her.

I agree in principal that the specifics are very different. There was of course plenty of criticism back then regarding the police department's handling of the evidence and also of the way the prosecution approached the case. Still, there was a lot more evidence against OJ than what the police had in the Anthony case.

In the end, we can all thank OJ for the way that the legal system is currently covered by the media...

bem401
07-06-2011, 04:29 PM
The jury that acquitted OJ would have acquitted him even if there was a videotape of the killing. They were a bunch of idiots who bought the race card hook, line, and sinker. Their stupidity became painfully obvious after the case when they said things like "der wuz no poof".

There were two huge blunders in the OJ case. The first was having him try on a leather glove that could have been expected not to fit after not having been worn in a year or more. The second and even worse blunder was the police detective Van Attar (sp?) drawing OJ's blood at the station and then bringing it with him to the crime scene. How does that get explained? He should have lost his pension for that stupid move.

The Anthony case had a lot of smoke, but apparently no fire in the jury's eyes.

decoda
07-06-2011, 04:33 PM
What really bothers me is all of the crying and pleading she did!
That she didnt know where Caylee was and how worried she was, how if she knew she would tell the police, how all she wantd was for Casey to come home THEN
To come out at trial that it was an accident!! and this BS story about a pool and drowning!!!

After the oscar winning crying and all of the lying she did the jurors decide to believe THIS story. What makes them think she is telling the truth now?? I agree it was a week case, but come on!!!

And where is Caylee's dad????
I thought for sure he would be found by now!

Trem
07-06-2011, 04:38 PM
Nobody believed her story, you could remove the entire defense (which was actually pretty horrible) and there still wouldn't be a conviction because there was no proof of the crime. You don't have to believe the defense to judge her not guilty, the prosecution has to provide a convincing case.

MargaritaVillain
07-06-2011, 06:33 PM
http://i.imgur.com/HuK6e.jpg

jester214
07-06-2011, 07:54 PM
Yeah as dissapointed as I am that she's not behind bars, I find myself kind of pleased that the power of the media is not infinite in court cases.

bem401
07-07-2011, 04:18 AM
Yeah as dissapointed as I am that she's not behind bars, I find myself kind of pleased that the power of the media is not infinite in court cases.

Media shouldn't have impacted this case. The jury was sequestered.

Trem
07-07-2011, 05:27 AM
If you want someone to blame try the lazy cops that did not check up on the earlier reports of a mysterious package in the area were the body was found. It was several months and a tropical storm that flooded the area before they finally went and checked. All the evidence that this case needed washed away in those months.

Raider
07-07-2011, 07:25 AM
Media shouldn't have impacted this case. The jury was sequestered.

Yes...the jurors were. But only during the trial. Living in Florida, I am sure that the chances of a juror not being interested in the case prior to trial and watching Nacy Grace and others were minimal.

Sometimes, the media makes the biggest deal out of some of the dumbest stuff and lose sight of the real picture.

And as a side note.....where were all the people protesting yesterday??? No cameras around so they just disappeared?

TarsTone
07-07-2011, 08:15 AM
For those who think this case "was not proven", I think we need to understand that beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty of the crime--but simply establishing that reasonable alternatives are not possible. This is the legal definition and the only one that is relevant.

In a criminal trial, proof does not require DNA evidence,fingerprints, or eyewitnesses. It has been met as long as there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. That's how Scott Peterson and thousands like him are convicted and how this bitch should have been as well. But apparently the 12 goats in that jury box didn't have these basic concepts explained to them.

Why would an innocent person change her story multiple times from the beginning and then finally settle on one that makes no sense and is clearly another lie?

Why would her car trunk smell like rotted flesh?...Why would Caylee's decomposed hair along with chloroform residues be found in it?...

If someone else had done it, did the jury think she would have hesitated for a second to expose them once her own life was on the line?

When you put all these together with the fact that the defense can't even provide a believable explanation, that she can't offer a shred of evidence for any aspect of it, what reasonable alternatives could possibly exist here??

I would love for the jury to just explain this: even if her dad was the incestuous monster she claims him to be, why the fudge would an ex-cop who surely understands the law force her to not call 911 and just cover up an accidental death, knowing that when it inevitably gets out they would all look like murder suspects?! This goes beyond being nice or evil--it's basic self-preservation.

The jury's job is to simply look at the entirety of the picture and use their common sense. Not, as many seem to believe, to judge whether the prosecution is competent and base their verdict on that.

And to see people parroting Baez's line that "the media didn't win" even though the jury was sequestered(!) or congratulating the system because it apparently worked the way it's supposed to!...

I piss on a system that "works" like this.

I would have completely understood if they gave her manslaughter instead of the first degree. It is reasonable to think that it was an accident. She had used "xannny the nanny" regularly to put the kid to sleep when partying, and when her money ran out she may have tried chloroform and killed her unintentionally.

But there isn't a single plausible explanation that excludes her as the killer, and her own "official" story is downright laughable. Hence, by the legal and only relevant definition of the term, there was no reasonable doubt.

Trem
07-07-2011, 08:21 AM
None of those things are proof of anything. They don't even know how the little girl died, how can you say it's murder when you don't even have that? She doesn't need a plausible explanation of why she is not the killer, she doesn't need a foolproof story, the prosecution does. Like i said, even if you don't believe a single word Casey has ever said the prosecution still did not have enough. You can't compare her story vs the prosecution version of what happens, that is not how this works. What you have to compare is the prosecutions story vs the evidence they presented to prove that story and it just wasn't there.

TarsTone
07-07-2011, 08:56 AM
None of those things are proof of anything. They don't even know how the little girl died, how can you say it's murder when you don't even have that?

She doesn't need a plausible explanation of why she is not the killer, she doesn't need a foolproof story, the prosecution does.
You need to stop watching CSI. You keep insisting on layman's ideas of "proof" even after I explained the legal definition to you.

It's not imperative to know how the baby was killed. No one knows for sure how Lacey Peterson was killed either. Caylee was a 2-year-old found with duct tape around her face in a wooded area and her death was logically ruled a homicide.

This is where Casey's lies come in. She does not have to provide a "foolproof" story, but when she provides a laughable one after changing her mind multiple times, it goes a long way in eliminating plausible alternatives.

The legal definition of burden of proof is quite clear: it has been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. It does not require the cause of death or those other cool things they show on CSI Miami. So unless you're aware of a credible theory that nullifies the combination of circumstantial evidence against her and her own incredible ever-changing explanations, I'm afraid reasonable doubt does not exist here.

michele11
07-07-2011, 09:12 AM
Hasn't anyone watched the jailhouse tapes. Her parents begged and pleaded with her for anything and all she could say was I don't have anything, they said media is saying she drowned in the pool, "surprise, surprise" was her response. She was the last person to see her. How many people everyday are convicted with less circumstantial evidence? Like said earlier scott peterson and many others. I was watching a trial on 60 minutes last night, the mustang murders. The only thin they had on him was he was a parking lot watchmen who said he witnesses said murder. All they had was he knew to much gave away info he could only have known if he were there. He was tried twice before they got him on second degree murder. He was not guilty on first. They could have given her a lesser charge. Many suspects have been convicted on way less!

michele11
07-07-2011, 09:19 AM
Oh yeah and early on she eluded in jailhouse tapes that jessie grund may have done it. She was alluding that she was scared and couldn't give out any info because whoever had caylee would hurt her. She sat there while hey searches for her and she knew she was dead and hid in her room and wouldn't tell anyone anything. Even before the body was found baez kept going on tv and claiming she was still alive they had solid keads she was in another state. She didn't rely on them finding the body since it was rainy, huricane season, or if they did she could say seeIam in jail I coudn't have put the body there. She kept telling them look close to home that's all I can say, I feel it in my gut she's still alive but when that didn't fly it was oh she drowned.

yoda57us
07-07-2011, 09:54 AM
And where is Caylee's dad????
I thought for sure he would be found by now!

Actually, according to one story, he's dead. There is a woman in New England claiming to be the mother of Caylee's father. Her son was killed, I believe in a car accident.

There seem to be several conflicting stories so who really knows!

michele11
07-07-2011, 10:33 AM
^Wow do you guys commenting really know anything or have you really followe this case? Casey said the father died in a car accident 3 years ago.

yoda57us
07-07-2011, 10:37 AM
^Wow do you guys commenting really know anything or have you really followe this case? Casey said the father died in a car accident 3 years ago.

Yes, and everything Casey has said up to know has been the God's-honest truth...

jester214
07-07-2011, 11:14 AM
And to see people parroting Baez's line that "the media didn't win" even though the jury was sequestered(!) or congratulating the system because it apparently worked the way it's supposed to!...

Oh the jury was sequestered? So they probably never heard anything about the case ever. I mean the media just started talking about this right? ::)

I thought she was guilty before the trial started. I'll bet you anything some of the jurors did too. The media convicted her (rightly or wrongly) before the trial ever started. Yet she was acquitted. So yes, while I deplore that she was acquitted, I do see some good in the fact that the power of the media is not infinite.

Did the system work? I dunno... I guess that depends on how you look at the system. I think the system failed, but not because she got off, but because the prosecutors and the police force failed.

penandink1019
07-07-2011, 11:55 AM
The good news: This attractive party girl, now free of her legal problems (and babysitting responsibilities ), will be able to date up a storm. I see a long career in the tabloids for this young woman.

TarsTone
07-07-2011, 12:05 PM
Did the system work? I dunno... I guess that depends on how you look at the system. I think the system failed, but not because she got off, but because the prosecutors and the police force failed.
Fine, I'll grant you the point about the media. I also believe that the police fucked up in gathering the evidence when it would have been far more condemning (although I think overall there were still enough indications of her guilt and no credible alternative scenarios).

But I don't understand this tendency to always blame everyone but the jury when shit like this happens. People said and continue to say the same about the OJ case as well and that's complete nonsense, albeit for different reasons.

Jurors are average lay people; they are not infallible, nor are they guaranteed to be smart and reasonable. Frankly, I don't think the average person in this country is sophisticated enough to not be manipulated by a sociopath in a suit throwing random bullshit at them and calling it "reasonable doubt". There were more than enough clues here for anyone with common sense to reach a guilty verdict.

TarsTone
07-07-2011, 12:12 PM
The good news: This attractive party girl, now free of her legal problems (and babysitting responsibilities ), will be able to date up a storm. I see a long career in the tabloids for this young woman.Well I think her dating and especially party options are going to be limited. She won't be able to walk into any club or bar without drunk angry people in her face within 5 minutes. But she will be making a fortune from interview fees and book/movie rights.

TarsTone
07-07-2011, 12:16 PM
Somewhere on death row right now, Scott Peterson is punching the walls and cursing his luck:)

michele11
07-07-2011, 01:22 PM
^Ha, ha. I don't think she will do any interviews on her own. If she didn't take the stand I really think even though she has sociopathic tendincies I think she's to much of a coward to ever give any interviews unless jose biaz is sitting there holding her hand and scripting what she should say.

michele11
07-07-2011, 01:28 PM
Oh I also think she won't be having any problems in the dating dept. Look at all the love letters amy fisher got when she was in prision actually convicted of shooting someone in the face! There are always crazies out thee who will date her just because of what she was accused of. Didn't you see the idiot at the court house with the home made sign covering his body that said I love casey. Nancy grace actually asked jessie grund ( her ex fiancee) if he was creeped out he had been intimate with her. lol.

penandink1019
07-07-2011, 01:50 PM
Well I think her dating and especially party options are going to be limited. She won't be able to walk into any club or bar without drunk angry people in her face within 5 minutes. .

8) You don't know much about America's love affair with celebrity, do you? It barely matters WHY a person is famous.

RoxyHart
07-07-2011, 02:03 PM
For some reason, even though she'll be walking freely I don't think she'll be living a very good life. As said before the mob of people who would gladly beat her to death, people yelling stuff at her and i imagine TONS of good ol' death threats. No one will hire her, let alone let her around children. She wants to adopt i hear.... yeah that ain't going to happen. I want to see her get a house...a car... anything for that matter. This will haunt her till the end of her days.

Within all this, if she even gets a chance to party or "live it up" i have an odd feeling she will end up dying in a drunk-filled car crash. Seems fitting for a such karma build up she's got going on. Call it a hunch.

JayATee
07-07-2011, 03:22 PM
Yeah hair in the trunk that was caylees thhat showed signs of decomposition, cadaver dogs hitting on the back yard and trunk. They convicted scott peterson on less.

Yes, the difference is, that Scott Peterson did it.


You need to stop watching CSI. You keep insisting on layman's ideas of "proof" even after I explained the legal definition to you.

It's not imperative to know how the baby was killed. No one knows for sure how Lacey Peterson was killed either. Caylee was a 2-year-old found with duct tape around her face in a wooded area and her death was logically ruled a homicide.


The fact that her death was ruled a homicide doesn't say her mother is responsible.


^Ha, ha. I don't think she will do any interviews on her own. If she didn't take the stand I really think even though she has sociopathic tendincies I think she's to much of a coward to ever give any interviews unless jose biaz is sitting there holding her hand and scripting what she should say.

She didn't take the stand because that would've given the prosecution the abillity to poke holes in her story and that may have convicted her. That's the only reason. That's the only good her attorney did her.

michele11
07-07-2011, 03:58 PM
^ Yeah I know why she didn't take the stand but I don't expect a coward like her doing talkshows. Had nothing to do with not taking the stand. 98% of first degree murder deffendants don't take the stand. Are you a psychic? Or did you date scott peterson because that case had less evidence besides him having an affair and being a lair I don't think there was any real evience saying he did it with out reasonable doubt!

bem401
07-07-2011, 05:14 PM
But didn't he rent or use a boat in the water where she was found about the time she was expected to have been killed?

sammii
07-07-2011, 05:19 PM
I can believe that the death of her daughter could have been an accident, and she lied to cover it up, but it still doesn't explain the fact that she went out partying right after her daughter went "missing." Also, I'm not claiming that I think it was an accident; I just think it could have been. Either way, this story really disturbs me. I hope she never adopts or has another chld.

Mr Hyde
07-07-2011, 05:44 PM
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/3271/caseyanthony0.jpg

TarsTone
07-07-2011, 06:11 PM
8) You don't know much about America's love affair with celebrity, do you? It barely matters WHY a person is famous.Yes, but being a child killer is different than most other kinds of doucheyness and even other kinds of murders. Even OJ who killed adults did not return to a normal life unless you count banging some brainless, gold-digging bimbos. You'll get away with a lot of shit in this celebrity-obsessed culture but this ain't one of them (yet).


Yes, the difference is, that Scott Peterson did it. Not that I disagree, but how are you so sure about that and not this??...the evidence in his case was just as circumstantial as this one. Being found guilty by a jury does not mean the crime was certainly committed, just as being found Not Guilty doesn't mean the person is innocent. They just mean a jury thought the evidence was either convincing enough or not to think the person was the likely perp. And juries can make mistakes both ways. They have done so plenty of times before.

In fact, while I think both are guilty as sin, I'll even say that Peterson was slightly more credible than Anthony! While both acted like assholes in the wake of their victims' disappearance, he actually reported his wife missing immediately and did not cover it up for a month.



The fact that her death was ruled a homicide doesn't say her mother is responsible.I did not suggest that. Lacey's death by itself did not prove that Scott was responsible either. But in both cases there is adequate circumstantial evidence to point the finger at the suspects who keep lying and can't provide a believable story, and there are no plausible alternative explanations. One jury was smart enough to convict, the other let a child killer go free.

MargaritaVillain
07-07-2011, 07:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/LkOza.png

JayATee
07-07-2011, 08:42 PM
^ Yeah I know why she didn't take the stand but I don't expect a coward like her doing talkshows. Had nothing to do with not taking the stand. 98% of first degree murder deffendants don't take the stand. Are you a psychic? Or did you date scott peterson because that case had less evidence besides him having an affair and being a lair I don't think there was any real evience saying he did it with out reasonable doubt!

Umm, did you follow the case? Because I'm pretty sure the evidence was damning and that's why he was convicted. Go do some research. When they start throwing people in jail when they can't prove anything beyond a stinky trunk and knowledge of how to work a search engine we're all fucked. ::)

JayATee
07-07-2011, 08:43 PM
Yes, but being a child killer is different than most other kinds of doucheyness and even other kinds of murders. Even OJ who killed adults did not return to a normal life unless you count banging some brainless, gold-digging bimbos. You'll get away with a lot of shit in this celebrity-obsessed culture but this ain't one of them (yet).

Not that I disagree, but how are you so sure about that and not this??...the evidence in his case was just as circumstantial as this one. Being found guilty by a jury does not mean the crime was certainly committed, just as being found Not Guilty doesn't mean the person is innocent. They just mean a jury thought the evidence was either convincing enough or not to think the person was the likely perp. And juries can make mistakes both ways. They have done so plenty of times before.

In fact, while I think both are guilty as sin, I'll even say that Peterson was slightly more credible than Anthony! While both acted like assholes in the wake of their victims' disappearance, he actually reported his wife missing immediately and did not cover it up for a month.

I did not suggest that. Lacey's death by itself did not prove that Scott was responsible either. But in both cases there is adequate circumstantial evidence to point the finger at the suspects who keep lying and can't provide a believable story, and there are no plausible alternative explanations. One jury was smart enough to convict, the other let a child killer go free.

Obviously 12 people in Florida disagreed. Thank god.

jester214
07-07-2011, 11:36 PM
Umm, did you follow the case? Because I'm pretty sure the evidence was damning and that's why he was convicted. Go do some research. When they start throwing people in jail when they can't prove anything beyond a stinky trunk and knowledge of how to work a search engine we're all fucked. ::)

This makes me seriously question anything you may or may not know about the current state of the judicial system in America.

yoda57us
07-08-2011, 06:27 AM
Um, none of us are defense attorneys or prosecutors here. We are stating opinions.

MargaritaVillain
07-08-2011, 06:28 AM
http://i.imgur.com/6ovJC.jpg

michele11
07-08-2011, 07:37 AM
I followed both cases and there was more evidence in the anthony case than the peterson. Obviously you haven't been if you think a stinky trunk, lol, and not knowing how to use an engine, don't even know what that's about was the only evidence. I guess when 5 or so people envolved in law enforcement said it smelled like a decomposing body in the trunk and all the maggets swarming in there, if all that was, was a stinky trunk. lol The cadaver dogs hit on the trunk and the back yard and she borowed a shovel from the neighbor. Scott owned a boat and fished in the area laceys body was found. I think a witness put him out there around the time they think she went missing. Dunno he's on death row, the very least casey should of got was child endangerment.

Raider
07-08-2011, 07:54 AM
Based on personal opinion and feelings towards the Anthony case, individuals are going to make assumptions that aren't there. Or, they will ignore 'evidence' that doesn't support their belief. Phrases like 'over charged' ....'common sense'......'any intelligent person would....' ...'not proven'.... are all used (or ignored) to support what they believe happened.

It is an unfortunate tragedy which I think we all agree could have been avoided at least to some extent. If the death of the child was accidental...at the very least the cover up and subsequent events could have been avoided by the individual(s) involved.

JayATee
07-08-2011, 08:06 AM
This makes me seriously question anything you may or may not know about the current state of the judicial system in America.

Yes question the law student based on your OPINION. Good job.

I'm done in this thread. I don't debate people who can't get their heads out of their own asses. ::)

TarsTone
07-08-2011, 12:37 PM
Umm, did you follow the case? Because I'm pretty sure the evidence was damning and that's why he was convicted. Go do some research. Oh I'm sure you've done extensive research on the Peterson trial. How else could you be "pretty sure" that the evidence was damning?

Hell, you even know he did it! That kind of knowledge takes more than research; it takes, like, some other stuff.


Yes question the law student based on your OPINION. Good job.I was already questioning your common sense, now I have to question the admission standards of American law schools. Thanks.

sparky72
07-08-2011, 12:41 PM
I think the state screwed up by going after the death penalty, they had to show it was premeditated. Had they went for second degree murder with life then I see the jury returning with a guilty verdict

JayATee
07-08-2011, 12:47 PM
Oh I'm sure you've done extensive research on the Peterson trial. How else could you be "pretty sure" that the evidence was damning?

Hell, you even know he did it! That kind of knowledge takes more than research; it takes, like, some other stuff.

I was already questioning your common sense, now I have to question the admission standards of American law schools. Thanks.

You're a moron. I know that too. Exactly where did I state I had done extensive research? Now I'm questioning your comprehension skills. Get a life.::)

TarsTone
07-08-2011, 12:54 PM
You're a moron. I know that too.Did Scott Peterson tell you?


Exactly where did I state I had done extensive research? You didn't and it's more than obvious you haven't. But that didn't stop you from spewing half-baked nonsense then having the balls to tell people to "go do research" when your own posts were devoid of facts or common sense.


Now I'm questioning your comprehension skills. Get a life.::)Don't stop loving me.

michele11
07-08-2011, 02:55 PM
The only real piece of evidence they had was a hair said to be similar to laceys in pliars found on the boat. e was a serial liar and cheater but yeah there was no direct evidence linking him to lacey and conors murder. I followed the case but anybody can read the wiki page or articles. States all the info.

jester214
07-09-2011, 12:40 AM
You're a moron. I know that too. Exactly where did I state I had done extensive research? Now I'm questioning your comprehension skills. Get a life.::)

I thought you were done with this thread? I love when people subtly mention something that they think makes them an authority. Whoa you a law student, thats so impressive! It's so hard to get into law school right.::)
(I got into law school, it's not hard or impressive).

NationwideStrippers
07-15-2011, 06:02 PM
This is the weekend for her release.... she better run and hide and get her makeover quick. Wonder how long she will last on the streets.
This woman is sick and disturbing and should be forced to have her tubes tide.
Her poor daughter... so sad.