There are many cases where the boards seem to wonder why no charges are brought when there's a "suspicious" suspect, but major problems in any potential criminal case.

The recent verdict in the Anthony case should serve as a good example of what happens when you try to prosecute a suspect when you're pretty sure they are involved, but there's no solid evidence as to the mechanics of the crime and plausible alternative theories.

Yes, ever since yesterday, I've been thinking about the Casey Anthony verdict and how her case compares to many of the other cases presented on UM. She probably looked more guilty than most of the infamous UM suspects combined, but it wasn't enough to convict her. After the verdict, I immediately had flashbacks to Donnie Hansen, who is definitely one of the guiltiest-looking people ever featured on UM, yet a jury had enough doubt about his involvement in the crime to acquit him.

If you've never read it, I encourage everyone to check out this old thread which casts some doubt on the idea of Paul Pollis murdering his wife. While it doesn't change my mind about him being guilty, it does raise some valid points of reasonable doubt. If Paul ever went to trial with the evidence they have now, I think any decent lawyer could use these points to sway a jury and get him acquited, and this is why he has never been charged with Charlotte's murder.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=277571

The best example of this logic would probably apply to Chad Noe and his family. While virtually EVERYONE believes they have committed murder and gotten away with it, there is just no solid evidence at all to build a successful case against them. In the Anthony case, there was at least a body, which is more than can be said about most of the UM cases, so now I just feel less surprised that the likes of Paul Pollis, Chad Noe or Mark Nichols have never had to face justice for their crimes.

Oh boy... I'm not trying to start an arguement. but if she didn't kill Caylee then who did?? there is just far too much circumstantial evidence to the point where it stops being circumstantial. the Jury screwed up big time here.

-She failed to report her child missing for a whole month? really?
-If your child is missing the last thing you do is go out and party
-If your innocent why change your story multiple times and obstruct the investigation?
-What exactly does allegedly being abused by your sibling or Father have to do with your miurdered child? talk about stalling tactics.
-A regular person doesn't look up the search terms "Neck break", "Shovel", "Homemade weapons", & "Choloraform" for kicks and giggles on the computer.

Whatever... I just can't shake the feeling she got away with murder. and it just really cheeses me off. I could be wrong but alot of the evidence makes me feel otherwise.

Meh, this case is forever going to make blood boil. But, I do have a criticism of the prosecution. They didn't have enough concrete evidence to bring a Murder I charge against Casey. If they had tried her on a lesser charge, it probably would have had a better chance of sticking. Problem is, they can't back track. They can't even get her on a wrongful death or failure to report a death because they already argued that the way the defense claimed Caylee died was not true. They shot themselves in the foot. But they tried. I don't think anyone will argue that a kid dies a natural death with duct tape involved, before or after.

Oh boy... I'm not trying to start an arguement. but if she didn't kill Caylee then who did?? there is just far too much circumstantial evidence to the point where it stops being circumstantial. the Jury screwed up big time here.

-She failed to report her child missing for a whole month? really?
-If your child is missing the last thing you do is go out and party
-If your innocent why change your story multiple times and obstruct the investigation?
-What exactly does allegedly being abused by your sibling or Father have to do with your miurdered child? talk about stalling tactics.
-A regular person doesn't look up the search terms "Neck break", "Shovel", "Homemade weapons", & "Choloraform" for kicks and giggles on the computer.

Whatever... I just can't shake the feeling she got away with murder. and it just really cheeses me off. I could be wrong but alot of the evidence makes me feel otherwise.

And it goes on and on. Why implicate an innocent person, who is now suing for defamation?

Meh, this case is forever going to make blood boil. But, I do have a criticism of the prosecution. They didn't have enough concrete evidence to bring a Murder I charge against Casey. If they had tried her on a lesser charge, it probably would have had a better chance of sticking. Problem is, they can't back track. They can't even get her on a wrongful death or failure to report a death because they already argued that the way the defense claimed Caylee died was not true. They shot themselves in the foot. But they tried. I don't think anyone will argue that a kid dies a natural death with duct tape involved, before or after.

Essentially, the system worked as it should. Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of the American criminal system. The State proved a child died, and proved Casey Anthony lied about it. They couldn't prove murder. Based on the evidence, I think the verdict as to Murder 1 was correct. I am more surprised that manslaughter wasn't found, but that goes directly to the prosecution's failure.

Even if it was an accident she should still get jailtime. for obstructing the case and failure to report her child missing. if she accidently drowned in the pool why dump the body a mile away from the house? so many things don't add up in this case.

For the record, I would not be surprised if the jury voted "not guilty" not because the case wasn't strong enough, but because they were peeved about having to be sequestered for the Fourth of July and didn't want to spend a couple more weeks of the summer being sequestered because they would have to vote on the sentencing phase. To unanimously vote "not guilty" is one thing, but the fact they agreed on this verdict so quickly makes me think there were twelve versions of Jack Warden's character from "12 Angry Men" on this jury.

I previously made a comparison to the Donnie Hansen trial, but I think a more apt comparison would be the jury's inexplicable decision to acquit Franklin Smith for the murder of Eileen Mangold despite his DNA evidence being on her! Florida juries really make me scratch my head sometimes...

Essentially, the system worked as it should. Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of the American criminal system. The State proved a child died, and proved Casey Anthony lied about it. They couldn't prove murder. Based on the evidence, I think the verdict as to Murder 1 was correct. I am more surprised that manslaughter wasn't found, but that goes directly to the prosecution's failure.

This case and the OJ Simpson case are the foundations of how our justice system is flawed. There was more than enough evidence that implicated and indicated that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were guilty. Simpson had the funds to buy the best defense team money could buy, and Anthony simply got lucky thanks to a lackluster prosecution. Jurors should convict someone whether or not they believe they are innocent. Yet in Anthony's case the jurors are stating they knew she was guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence to put her away. It's sickening.

This case and the OJ Simpson case are the foundations of how our justice system is flawed. There was more than enough evidence that implicated and indicated that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were guilty. Simpson had the funds to buy the best defense team money could buy, and Anthony simply got lucky thanks to a lackluster prosecution. Jurors should convict someone whether or not they believe they are innocent. Yet in Anthony's case the jurors are stating they knew she was guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence to put her away. It's sickening.

The problem with this is that what a juror "believes" could be based on a whole host of factors that have nothing to do with the facts of the case. It's why evidence of past criminal acts that could be overly prejudicial doesn't make it to court in most places. It's easy to say that our justice system is flawed in the wake of a very probably guilty suspect going free for murder, but these "flaws" are built into the system to stop innocent suspects from being imprisoned, which happens far too often in this country and most often because a jury is going with what they "believe" and not the facts presented in court.

I agree with Apostapler. The prosecution just didn't have the evidence to pursue murder 1 and prove pre-meditated murder. We can ask questions all day long that weren't answered. Why didn't she report her missing right away? Why did she dump the body if the death was accidental? Why lie and change your story if you're innocent. The problem is that the prosecution cannot walk into court and ask these questions to build their case. They have to have the answers to present when the case gets to trial. In this case they didn't.

Does that make me angry? You bet. But that's our justice system, and I'll take it over the alternative.

This case and the OJ Simpson case are the foundations of how our justice system is flawed. There was more than enough evidence that implicated and indicated that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were guilty. Simpson had the funds to buy the best defense team money could buy, and Anthony simply got lucky thanks to a lackluster prosecution.

Getting the "best defense" wasn't the only factor in OJ Simpson's acquittal. Another was the change in venue. Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi (who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson) criticized the decision to try the case in Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica, which was much closer to where the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman took place. In a 1995 interview on the now-defunct CNBC talk show Rivera Live, Bugliosi argued that the L.A. jury was not a representative jury, adding that they were biased against the prosecution and biased in Simpson's favor.

He also faulted the prosecution for not introducing some of the most vital pieces of evidence against OJ Simpson:

- The items found in the Bronco after the infamous slow-speed chase, including a passport, a disguise, and a large amount of money. On the Rivera Live interview (which I recommend you check out at YT), Bugliosi described this evidence as "exceedingly incriminating."

- The so-called suicide note, which Simpson wrote shortly before he went on the run. Bugliosi says the note "reeks" with guilt.

- The half-hour police interrogation tape in which Simpson made some incriminating statements about the cut on his finger. Bugliosi called this "powerful circumstantial evidence of guilt."

This is all detailed in Bugliosi's book, Outrage: The Five Reasons Why OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder.

I personally don't think they were the best defense team, but those words were constantly bantered about by people describing this case. He had the funds to hire several lawyers to help him beat the wrap, and that's exactly what he did. You're preaching to the choir about how the prosecution dropped the ball. The slow speed chase in the Bronco (with a passport and a disguise) would be enough indication that he had something to hide. Kato Kaelin's testimony didn't help the prosecution either, since it seemed like he tended to ramble on about certain aspects. Had the prosecution focused more on the little details instead of looking at the big picture (getting the conviction), I think they would have won. At least the scumbag is where he deserves to be now.

Well I think the jury was correct in the Casey Anthony case. There was too much reasonable doubt to convict her of the serious charges against her. Maybe if they charged her with negligent homicide, tampering with evidence, and/or improper disposal of human remains or whatever the equivalent charges would be in Florida, if there are those sorts of charges here in this state, then I'd say she is guilty of those (definitely the improper disposal of human remains one). I watched that trial for the majority of the case with what I thought was objectivity and was won over by the state's case, especially after their closing arguments on July 3rd. I was only able to see the first 20-30 minutes of the Baez's closing arguments and saw the whole final rebuttal the final day and was totally shocked the next day when she was found innocent of all the major charges. Then I watched the defense's full closing arguments just now on the most popular video site (search for Casey Anthony murder trial 7/3/11 parts 5-10) and what Baez and Mason said in their closings caused me to do a complete 180 as to her being guilty of 1st degree murder, aggravated child abuse, or aggravated manslaughter of a child. There was way too much reasonable doubt to convict on any of those and the case the state presented on those was completely debunked by the defense. So 3 years in jail for what she did seems fair or close to being fair for what she did, I feel. I mean she's always going to have to live with the stigma surrounding her that so many people think she's a cold-blooded sadistic baby killer like she's been portrayed as for 3 years in the media. So she will have to live in a sort of prison of the kind as a recluse because of her infamy until she dies because there will always be the media trying to get to her and crazy people with a lynch mob mentality.

I do hope now that she can put her story out there as to what her side is without getting into trouble for it, that she reveals what really happened, or at least whatever story she decides to come up with as to what happened anyhow. :)

I mean she's always going to have to live with the stigma surrounding her that so many people think she's a cold-blooded sadistic baby killer like she's been portrayed as for 3 years in the media.

That's because she is a cold blooded sadistic baby killer. She failed to report her daughter missing for an entire month. She then claimed her daughter was kidnapped, yet never made any attempt to contact the authorities. She blamed a totally unrelated woman, whom she never met mind you, as the one who abducted her daughter. She lied to her parents constantly during the duration that her daughter was missing, be it about where she was working at the time or where her daughter was located. To top it all off the entire time her daughter was missing, she was out at clubs dancing, drinking, and partying. Am I not getting something here? That's more than enough reasonable doubt for me. She never once has appealed to the media to go out and get the real person who murdered her daughter. Never. Then there are those who say this was a covered up accidental death. Why the lies then? Why the constant celebrating and carousing around town? It's quite obvious to me that this woman got away with murder, plain and simple.

O. J. Simpson also denied ever having owned the type of gloves and shoes indicated at the crime scene. Later, not just a photograph, but negatives of a whole series of photographs, were found revealing him wearing both the gloves and the shoes! The jury knew nothing of this till the trial was over as it emerged while they were sequestered and was never admitted into evidence. It showed he was willing to lie about any detail.

That's because she is a cold blooded sadistic baby killer. She failed to report her daughter missing for an entire month. She then claimed her daughter was kidnapped, yet never made any attempt to contact the authorities. She blamed a totally unrelated woman, whom she never met mind you, as the one who abducted her daughter. She lied to her parents constantly during the duration that her daughter was missing, be it about where she was working at the time or where her daughter was located. To top it all off the entire time her daughter was missing, she was out at clubs dancing, drinking, and partying. Am I not getting something here?
If she were lying for years before to create this network of imaginary people to account for her working and for her whereabouts as far as where she's staying overnight her being employed, would it surprise you if she kept up and maintained that behavior after? She was able to party before Caylee was dead, so why would she kill her daughter (who she never hurt physically before and by all accounts loved her like a normal mother would love her child) just so she could try to party when she didn't have to do that? Her mother was able to watch Caylee while she went out, so why would she all of a sudden kill her daughter? It doesn't seem logical at all when you think about it.

That's more than enough reasonable doubt for me.
Of what? That she's a liar? Yes, there is no doubt of that at all. There is however a lot of doubt as to 1st degree murder and child abuse, and some doubt as to aggravated manslaughter of a child. Accidental homicide (or excusable homicide in Florida), lying to investigators, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and improper disposal of human remains (I don't think there is a Florida statute as to that charge, but tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice seem to be sufficient enough for that) seem like charges that would be a better fit for this case and ones a jury could reasonably convict her on. But the state went after ones they couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, so they lost.

She never once has appealed to the media to go out and get the real person who murdered her daughter. Never.

Yes, because she knew what happened.

Then there are those who say this was a covered up accidental death. Why the lies then? Why the constant celebrating and carousing around town?

I say there is more to substantiate an accidental death and cover up than a first degree or aggravated manslaughter charge here.

Say Caylee is swimming in the pool, Casey is distracted by something like a phone call or something. She looks and sees Caylee drowning or drowned, then freaks out and thinks she is going to get into trouble for it. So she (since she has always been covering up and covering for her lies before) undresses Caylee from her bathing suit and redresses her in clothing that she's grown out of months before, wraps her in her blanket, garbage bags, and the laundry bag and then puts the duct tape on the bag to try to seal it. None of the cover up of the body would suggest pre-meditation on her part, but would be more suggestive of pre-meditation by a stranger. If she pre-meditated on this, wouldn't she come up with a better place to hide the body than right down the street, where it would easily be found 19 feet away from the road and wouldn't she come up with a better way to wrap the body than using objects that would suggest the murderer be from that home? Then after doing that, she knows there is no turning back and so she keeps lying to cover things up, which she is great at until the police get involved. By then it's too late for her. She is definitely a liar and a thief, but by going from liar and thief with no violent tendencies to a murderer of your own child that you gave birth to is a huge stretch.


It's quite obvious to me that this woman got away with murder, plain and simple.
It is obvious if you believe the media and the prosecution theory without even considering the other side. I was certainly dismissive of the defense in this case and when I heard their closing argument, it pretty much poked holes and debunked all of the evidence that the was propping up the prosecution's case like the searches on the computer, the supposed chloroform evidence, the body being in the car for many days, the cause of death being suffocation, so pretty much the majority of their case. Hence there being more than enough reasonable doubt. See, the police saw her as a liar who was covering up a murder, so they arrested her as such, then set out to prove that. You can tell by the amount of times they processed the evidence. But it never fit, yet they still pushed on for the worst charges and they were not substantiated by the facts.

If she were lying for years before to create this network of imaginary people to account for her working and for her whereabouts as far as where she's staying overnight her being employed, would it surprise you if she kept up and maintained that behavior after? She was able to party before Caylee was dead, so why would she kill her daughter (who she never hurt physically before and by all accounts loved her like a normal mother would love her child) just so she could try to party when she didn't have to do that? Her mother was able to watch Caylee while she went out, so why would she all of a sudden kill her daughter? It doesn't seem logical at all when you think about it.

No it doesn't surprise me that she carried on these lies for years on end. That is what those in the psychology field refer to as a pathological liar. Which is what most sociopaths/psychopaths are considered among many other things. Her daughter was a handicap to the lifestyle that she wanted to live, which was that of a young single childless woman.

Of what? That she's a liar? Yes, there is no doubt of that at all. There is however a lot of doubt as to 1st degree murder and child abuse, and some doubt as to aggravated manslaughter of a child. Accidental homicide (or excusable homicide in Florida), lying to investigators, obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and improper disposal of human remains (I don't think there is a Florida statute as to that charge, but tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice seem to be sufficient enough for that) seem like charges that would be a better fit for this case and ones a jury could reasonably convict her on. But the state went after ones they couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, so they lost.

I don't buy the accident theory. She has several ties to looking up/researching chloroform, and there was duct tape found near the baby's body. Two things that do not gel with an accidental death. IMO this was premeditated. Her car showed signs of decomposition in the trunk, agasin another indisputable piece of forensic evidence that would dispute an accidental death. Unless of course she found her daughter dead, then kept her in the trunk for days, which seems highly unlikely. She should have been convicted of at least one of the charges you mentioned, and it's a travesty of justice that this woman is going to be free.

I say there is more to substantiate an accidental death and cover up than a first degree or aggravated manslaughter charge here.

Say Caylee is swimming in the pool, Casey is distracted by something like a phone call or something. She looks and sees Caylee drowning or drowned, then freaks out and thinks she is going to get into trouble for it. So she (since she has always been covering up and covering for her lies before) undresses Caylee from her bathing suit and redresses her in clothing that she's grown out of months before, wraps her in her blanket, garbage bags, and the laundry bag and then puts the duct tape on the bag to try to seal it. None of the cover up of the body would suggest pre-meditation on her part, but would be more suggestive of pre-meditation by a stranger. If she pre-meditated on this, wouldn't she come up with a better place to hide the body than right down the street, where it would easily be found 19 feet away from the road and wouldn't she come up with a better way to wrap the body than using objects that would suggest the murderer be from that home? Then after doing that, she knows there is no turning back and so she keeps lying to cover things up, which she is great at until the police get involved. By then it's too late for her. She is definitely a liar and a thief, but by going from liar and thief with no violent tendencies to a murderer of your own child that you gave birth to is a huge stretch.

Eric Clapton's son fell from a window and died. It was an unfortunate, tragic accident. Did he lie because he was afraid he was "going to get in trouble"? Absolutely not, because accidents do happen all the time unfortunately. What kind of a mother (one that you say by all accounts loved her daughter) would take their dead child, wrap them in a blanket, and then dump their body in the woods because they didn't want to get in trouble? You seem to indicate that Casey would have picked a better location to dump her daughter's body, and how she wouldn't have been stupid enough to use items from her own home which would implicate her further. But Casey Anthony is not a criminal mastermind, and she definitely would have been sloppy in committing a crime of this magnitude.

It is obvious if you believe the media and the prosecution theory without even considering the other side. I was certainly dismissive of the defense in this case and when I heard their closing argument, it pretty much poked holes and debunked all of the evidence that the was propping up the prosecution's case like the searches on the computer, the supposed chloroform evidence, the body being in the car for many days, the cause of death being suffocation, so pretty much the majority of their case. Hence there being more than enough reasonable doubt. See, the police saw her as a liar who was covering up a murder, so they arrested her as such, then set out to prove that. You can tell by the amount of times they processed the evidence. But it never fit, yet they still pushed on for the worst charges and they were not substantiated by the facts.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I do see your point about the prosecution not proving their case against Anthony. But that doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. Kaylee was last seen by her grandparents on June 16th, 2008. I'll let Casey Anthony tell you in her own words how she felt on June 21st, 2008 (after Caylee was alleged to have been kidnapped/missing):

"I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. I hope that my happiness will continue to grow– I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people – I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change."

Sound like the musings of a mother who was too scared to reach out to the authorities when she found her daughter had died unexpectedly?

No it doesn't surprise me that she carried on these lies for years on end. That is what those in the psychology field refer to as a pathological liar. Which is what most sociopaths/psychopaths are considered among many other things. Her daughter was a handicap to the lifestyle that she wanted to live, which was that of a young single childless woman.

I wouldn't argue that she doesn't have something like antisocial personality disorder or something wrong with her, but I would argue that she has a history of violence, especially towards her daughter. If she did, the prosecution would have found it and brought that evidence up in some way. And why, if her parents were able to watch her at night, would she need to get rid of Caylee so she could go out? That motive doesn't hold much water to me. She lived at home with her parents and her parents could watch Caylee at pretty much any night or weekend when they weren't working.

I don't buy the accident theory. She has several ties to looking up/researching chloroform, and there was duct tape found near the baby's body. Two things that do not gel with an accidental death. IMO this was premeditated. Her car showed signs of decomposition in the trunk, agasin another indisputable piece of forensic evidence that would dispute an accidental death. Unless of course she found her daughter dead, then kept her in the trunk for days, which seems highly unlikely. She should have been convicted of at least one of the charges you mentioned, and it's a travesty of justice that this woman is going to be free.

There was only one search for chloroform on that computer and it was searched for immediately after looking at her MySpace page when her friend Ricardo Morales posted a picture of a man looking down a woman’s neckline quoting this phrase “Win her over with chloroform.” The prosecution had their computer expert do one search in 2008 and only found that one instance of a search for "chloroform". Not until June 2011 (after the trial had already begun) when they used a new software did the 84 instances for "chloroform" come up, but it was a mistake (it was actually the times that the first program showed MySpace showing up and MySpace was mysteriously omitted in the second report), yet was entered into evidence as fact and I think it was also entered in without the evidence being deposed, but the judge allowed it for whatever reason. And that one search (which is so far from any real evidence of pre-meditation as to be laughable) was the only thing in this whole case that had to do with chloroform that wasn't speculation.

As to the duct tape evidence, you would think duct tape placed on a victim's mouth to smother them and kept on the corpse would have some DNA on the sticky side of it, especially after the flesh going through all of the stages of decomposition. But no DNA from Casey or Caylee was found on any of it and the investigators couldn't tell you if it was used to kill her or whether it was on the face before or after she died or if it was even on the face at all.
Here is an article about the testimony on the autopsy performed by Werner Spitz, who has conducted several thousands of autopsies, including ones from many high profile cases:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/18/casey-anthony-trial-defen_n_879833.html?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|sec1_lnk1|216366#s294477&title=Casey_Anthony_Trial

He said that the duct tape wasn't attached to her face and he also said that the normal evidence of suffocation was not present on the bones.

Also, there was no DNA or cell material of decomposition in the trunk of the car and they examined and scoured that trunk several times trying to look for it and there was also no chloroform in the car either. The stain in there was determined to be a gasoline stain and that's it. There was one blowfly leg, but that came from the bag of trash that was in there. All maggots or early colonizers were in the actual bag of trash that was in the trunk and not in the trunk itself.


Eric Clapton's son fell from a window and died. It was an unfortunate, tragic accident. Did he lie because he was afraid he was "going to get in trouble"? Absolutely not, because accidents do happen all the time unfortunately. What kind of a mother (one that you say by all accounts loved her daughter) would take their dead child, wrap them in a blanket, and then dump their body in the woods because they didn't want to get in trouble? You seem to indicate that Casey would have picked a better location to dump her daughter's body, and how she wouldn't have been stupid enough to use items from her own home which would implicate her further. But Casey Anthony is not a criminal mastermind, and she definitely would have been sloppy in committing a crime of this magnitude.
That is exactly my point. She didn't calculate a murder of pre-meditation here. If she planned a murder, I'm sure she could have came up with a better and a more rational way to get rid of the body having had a lot of time to think about it. It seems to support the accidental death theory more than a theory of pre-meditation. Same with the clothes that were on Caylee. She wasn't wearing shoes or socks and she was dressed in clothes that she outgrew 6 months or so earlier.

Also, she wasn't a very rational thinking person here to begin with. If she happened to come upon an accidental death of Caylee, I don't think it's too much of a stretch that she would try to cover it up given her history of lies and cover ups.


I'm not trying to argue with you, I do see your point about the prosecution not proving their case against Anthony. But that doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. Kaylee was last seen by her grandparents on June 16th, 2008. I'll let Casey Anthony tell you in her own words how she felt on June 21st, 2008 (after Caylee was alleged to have been kidnapped/missing):

"I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. I hope that my happiness will continue to grow– I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people – I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change."

Sound like the musings of a mother who was too scared to reach out to the authorities when she found her daughter had died unexpectedly?
That journal entry was in dispute as to when it was written and it was never conclusively found to be written in a certain year. The page facing it in the journal was from 2003. So it really proves nothing.

She failed to report her daughter missing for an entire month. She then claimed her daughter was kidnapped, yet never made any attempt to contact the authorities.

There oughta be a law! Oh, wait.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43691279/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

By the way, I'm pretty certain there are laws respecting child abuse and neglect, failure to report a death, abuse of a corpse, and unlawful disposal of a body, not to mention providing false information to law enforcement and perjury. Anyone else want to chime in on how sweet and innocent dear Casey is?

The problem with our justice system is that people too often leave common sense and logic outside the courtroom. The same logic and common sense they use on a daily basis to make decisions. Why is this?

I've been listening to some of these jurors being interviewed...and I dont think they understand what they were suppose to do. They are all talking about cause of death, questioning the charges that were brought for etc. The prosecution is NOT required to prove cause of death. And it's not the jury's job to question the charges or question why a certain punishment is attached to a charge. Their job is look at everything is presented and make a logical decision. I think this jury wanted everything handed to them on a silver platter; a slam dunk case. They wanted it be like an episode of CSI; they wanted cause of death, they wanted DNA, they wanted eyewitnesses. They were too worried about that instead of focusing on the evidence that was given to them. And there was more then enough put in front of them....all they had to was use intelligent reasoning to connect the dots and put the puzzle together. The Scott Peterson jury did this...very similar case in that it lacked "CSI type evidence". That jury put everything together though, use logic and common sense and came to the conclusion that he had to be the one who killed Laci...and good for them otherwise another murderer would be free.

This jury simply didn't want to use logic and connect the dots...either because they didn't want to, or because they were to stupid to. I watched almost every day of this trial, and it's so obvious that once you add up all these little bits of evidence that the prosecution threw at you...that she was guilty.

One thing I will say, is that it can be debated whether the state overcharged her. The jurors I've heard talk so far say the fact that the death penalty was on the table is a big factor as to why they found her not guilty....although that doesnt explain why they didnt at least find her guilty of the aggravated manslaughter. I also think she should have been charged with child neglect, and improper disposal of a corpse.

I wouldn't argue that she doesn't have something like antisocial personality disorder or something wrong with her, but I would argue that she has a history of violence, especially towards her daughter. If she did, the prosecution would have found it and brought that evidence up in some way. And why, if her parents were able to watch her at night, would she need to get rid of Caylee so she could go out? That motive doesn't hold much water to me. She lived at home with her parents and her parents could watch Caylee at pretty much any night or weekend when they weren't working.

Was Dahmer a violent person to those who knew him? No. And he was one of the most brutal and sadistic serial killers this country has ever seen. So her parents could watch her when she went out partying, who cares? Anyway you slice it, when she woke up the next morning Caylee was going to be in her life. She could, in essence, pawn her off on her parents, but how long would that be before the well dried up?

As to the duct tape evidence, you would think duct tape placed on a victim's mouth to smother them and kept on the corpse would have some DNA on the sticky side of it, especially after the flesh going through all of the stages of decomposition. But no DNA from Casey or Caylee was found on any of it and the investigators couldn't tell you if it was used to kill her or whether it was on the face before or after she died or if it was even on the face at all.

The brand of duct tape was described by LE as "rare", which coincidentally was the same brand found in the Anthony home.

Also, there was no DNA or cell material of decomposition in the trunk of the car and they examined and scoured that trunk several times trying to look for it and there was also no chloroform in the car either. The stain in there was determined to be a gasoline stain and that's it. There was one blowfly leg, but that came from the bag of trash that was in there. All maggots or early colonizers were in the actual bag of trash that was in the trunk and not in the trunk itself.

There was a hair found in her trunk, which had characteristics of coming from a decomposed body, which matched Casey's DNA. Which would mean the DNA also would match Caylee, which means her dead body was in the trunk of her mother's car.

Also, she wasn't a very rational thinking person here to begin with. If she happened to come upon an accidental death of Caylee, I don't think it's too much of a stretch that she would try to cover it up given her history of lies and cover ups.

The defense team's theory was that Caylee accidentally drowned in the swimming pool. Why is it so much of a stretch that, based on the body of lies Casey told everyone during the period that Caylee was missing, Casey lied about the alleged "accident" as well?

That journal entry was in dispute as to when it was written and it was never conclusively found to be written in a certain year. The page facing it in the journal was from 2003. So it really proves nothing.

The FBI determined that the journal in question was not manufactured until 2004, making the 2003 journal entry impossible.

The Scott Peterson jury did this...very similar case in that it lacked "CSI type evidence". That jury put everything together though, use logic and common sense and came to the conclusion that he had to be the one who killed Laci...and good for them otherwise another murderer would be free.

Excellent point. There was little to no physical evidence that tied Peterson to the actual crime, yet the jury, just as you said "connected the dots" and determined he was guilty. Same thing should have been done for Casey Anthony.

There oughta be a law! Oh, wait.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43691279/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001
I'm happy they are coming up with this law. It's too late for this case, unfortunately.


By the way, I'm pretty certain there are laws respecting child abuse and neglect, failure to report a death, abuse of a corpse, and unlawful disposal of a body, not to mention providing false information to law enforcement and perjury.
Yes, they charged her with child abuse and she was acquitted because there was absolutely no evidence that she ever abused her child whether by physical evidence or by the testimony of everyone who knew her. If Caylee died drowning in the pool, then you could say she could be charged with neglect and they could have pushed for accidental homicide (or what the Florida equivalent is to it; excusable homicide), especially in the circumstances of her failing to report it like she did. She could have also been charged with failure to report a death if they didn't assume she committed first degree murder and if they went with the accidental death theory. There is no Florida statute to unlawful disposal of a body or human remains, so the best they probably could have done there was tampering of evidence and that was if they went for the accidental death theory. They did charge and convict her on the 4 counts of lying or providing false information to law enforcement and she didn't testify, so charging her with perjury makes no sense at all.

Anyone else want to chime in on how sweet and innocent dear Casey is?
I am not saying she's completely innocent here. In fact, I think she's definitely guilty of what she was found guilty of in addition to what I said I think she should have been charged with instead of 1st degree murder, child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child.


The problem with our justice system is that people too often leave common sense and logic outside the courtroom. The same logic and common sense they use on a daily basis to make decisions. Why is this?
You mean the same logic and common sense the jurors used in this case to acquit her seeing as the evidence against her as to the major counts she was charged with wasn't backed up by physical evidence?


I've been listening to some of these jurors being interviewed...and I dont think they understand what they were suppose to do.

They did exactly what they were supposed to do, not rule by emotions, stick to the evidence, and if the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the crimes she was charged with, then find her guilty of the charges she was found guilty of committing. Not base their decisions on pure speculation with no concrete evidence to back it up.


They are all talking about cause of death, questioning the charges that were brought for etc. The prosecution is NOT required to prove cause of death.

But it is required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and they didn't.

And it's not the jury's job to question the charges or question why a certain punishment is attached to a charge. Their job is look at everything is presented and make a logical decision.

That is what they did.

I think this jury wanted everything handed to them on a silver platter; a slam dunk case. They wanted it be like an episode of CSI; they wanted cause of death, they wanted DNA, they wanted eyewitnesses.

I think they wanted at least one piece of evidence that proved pre-meditation or even that a murder or even child abuse was committed, but there was none at all. There was however plenty of evidence that she lied to the authorities and was rightly convicted of all of those charges.

They were too worried about that instead of focusing on the evidence that was given to them. And there was more then enough put in front of them....

There was more than enough evidence to prove what exactly? That Caylee was dead, her body was disposed of, and Casey was a liar and a thief? Yes, there was more than enough evidence of those things. If you're talking more than enough evidence or murder, child abuse, or pre-meditated murder, then there was no evidence at all of any of those.

all they had to was use intelligent reasoning to connect the dots and put the puzzle together.

You mean create evidence in their mind and convict her based on speculations? Good thing you aren't on a jury.


The Scott Peterson jury did this...very similar case in that it lacked "CSI type evidence". That jury put everything together though, use logic and common sense and came to the conclusion that he had to be the one who killed Laci...and good for them otherwise another murderer would be free.

There are a lot of similarities between this case and that one, but the difference here is that the trial was televised, so you were able to see all of the courtroom proceedings and hear all of the testimony and see all of the evidence instead of just go by whatever the media told you and think however they wanted you to think.


This jury simply didn't want to use logic and connect the dots...either because they didn't want to, or because they were to stupid to. I watched almost every day of this trial, and it's so obvious that once you add up all these little bits of evidence that the prosecution threw at you...that she was guilty.

Guilty of what? If you are talking about the charges or child abuse, first degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, what bits of evidence are you talking about that led you to that conclusion given the prosecution's theory?


One thing I will say, is that it can be debated whether the state overcharged her. The jurors I've heard talk so far say the fact that the death penalty was on the table is a big factor as to why they found her not guilty....although that doesnt explain why they didnt at least find her guilty of the aggravated manslaughter.

See, if the prosecution used the defense theory, then they could have had a better chance of convicting her of that, I think.



Was Dahmer a violent person to those who knew him? No. And he was one of the most brutal and sadistic serial killers this country has ever seen.

So now you are comparing her to Dahmer? That's a cavernous stretch.

So her parents could watch her when she went out partying, who cares?

So saying who cares makes it not matter to the issue of it disproving the prosecution's theory as to the motive in this case?

Anyway you slice it, when she woke up the next morning Caylee was going to be in her life.

Huh?

She could, in essence, pawn her off on her parents, but how long would that be before the well dried up?
Probably until Caylee got old enough to look after herself, so another 10 years or so.



The brand of duct tape was described by LE as "rare", which coincidentally was the same brand found in the Anthony home.

Yes, and it was George's and was accessible by anyone in that household and it wasn't proven to be the instrument that caused Caylee's death in this case.


There was a hair found in her trunk, which had characteristics of coming from a decomposed body, which matched Casey's DNA. Which would mean the DNA also would match Caylee, which means her dead body was in the trunk of her mother's car.

The one hair was among hundreds found in the trunk and the experts could not be definite with their finding that it was from a decomposed body. Even so, if it were that doesn't prove murder, just transport.


The defense team's theory was that Caylee accidentally drowned in the swimming pool. Why is it so much of a stretch that, based on the body of lies Casey told everyone during the period that Caylee was missing, Casey lied about the alleged "accident" as well?

Because the evidence to that makes more logical sense than murder.


The FBI determined that the journal in question was not manufactured until 2004, making the 2003 journal entry impossible.
Here's a picture of it: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740990/detail.html
So since the FBI determined it wasn't manufactured until 2004, then it could have been an entry from 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008. Not definitive proof there of the year other than it not being before 2004 and not definitive proof that she is talking about the death of Caylee in that entry.

Here is what was on the inside front cover:

"'03 EVERYDAY IS A BRAND NEW BEGINNING

CARPE DIEM –seize the day–"


And this is the journal entry dated Jun 21:

"I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out okay.

I completely trust my own judgement & know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means.I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see — This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time.I hope that my happiness will continue to grow — I’ve made new friends that I really like. I’ve surrounded myself with good people — I am finally happy. Let’s just hope that it doesn’t change."

Could this be from Jun 21, 2005 when Casey was pregnant with Caylee and her talking about not aborting her or giving her up for adoption? It seems to make sense in that context just like it seems to make sense in the context of the prosecution's case. So ultimately you should discount it as evidence to support her guilt or innocence since there is no way to tell exactly what year that entry was made. I'm wondering why there are pages torn out and who did that? And I'm also wondering, if the journal really was not available until 2004, then why the '03?


And just so you all know, I don't think she is totally innocent here. I think the police handled the case how they would normally handle a missing child case and since she lied to them about everything, they arrested her. Then when they found the body, they set their sights to trying to convict her of murder by going over all of the evidence with a fine-tooth comb. Then the only things they came up with as far as physical evidence was the stuff found in the trunk, which only would show transport and the duct tape on and near the body, which wasn't shown to be the instrument which caused Caylee's death and wasn't proven to be on her before or after she was dead and that's it as far as trying to prove she murdered and dumped Caylee's body.

The rest of the evidence is open to speculation or interpretation from the behavior and lies of Casey, the journal entry, and the chloroform searches (which were false findings from the computer expert). I mean 350 something pieces of evidence and nearly 100 witnesses (most of those pieces of evidence and witnesses from the prosecution's case) and they only proved that Casey was a big liar who was covering up something with regards to her daughter's disappearance and death, who stole from family and friends, and who liked to go out (like anyone else her age would). I mean other than the defense theory that she disposed of Caylee, there was no actual physical evidence as to connect her to being the one that did it. The one single hair wasn't found to be definite that it was from Caylee's decomposing body (using technology/methodology that is in it's infancy and not fully developed yet), but it was Caylee's hair and that was the only hair that belonged to her among hundreds of other hairs. The stain in the trunk was gasoline and the bugs in the trunk were from the inside of the trash bag. But given the circumstances, she had to have known that Caylee died and she and/or someone she knew got rid of the body. George could be someone that could have helped her cover it up, if anyone else was involved and since he was a former police investigator, he could have coached her through it. Given his propensity to lie on the stand and to investigators in this case, I think saying he might have been involved in the cover up isn't much of a stretch either.

See, I bought into the prosecution theory after being inundated with this story in the press for the past 3 years and watching nearly the whole trial on TV for 6 weeks. I came into the trial looking at it all objectively and when I saw the first closing argument by Ashton for the prosecution, I felt convinced. Then I saw some of the defense's closing argument, but by then I was so swayed by the prosecution before that I thought Baez was grasping at straws, so I didn't even consider him to be anything credible and I ended up just watching the first 30 minutes or so of the defense's closing arguments and that was it. Then I saw the next day where the prosecution gave their final rebuttal and it cemented their case for me. So the verdict the following day was a shock, like it was for so many people. But the funny thing was that I thought about her reaction to being acquitted and she didn't strike me as some cold-blooded killer that just got away with murder. Also, George's reaction seemed pretty unsettling to me. And the next day I tried to look at everything in the case through a different lens (starting with watching the entire closing arguments for the defense and checking what they said out as to the evidence) and once I did that, it seemed to make more sense that she didn't murder Caylee. It was pretty difficult to find sites for certain things pertaining to this case that were objective too. It's like everyone was convinced of her being a murderer like I was.

This just goes to show that when you push a story a certain way in the media for so long and keep piling onto it and the other side is never even considered (or laughed off/ridiculed) then it becomes truth in most peoples' minds whether it is true or not. And piling elements onto the story that aren't substantiated through hard evidence or are just outright lies, then it doesn't matter as long as you can keep piling it on. If anything, this case has taught me to not let the press formulate their opinions in my mind and consider all sides to stories first, especially when there is no solid evidence that is indisputable.

You mean create evidence in their mind and convict her based on speculations? Good thing you aren't on a jury.

There is nothing to speculate. If it walks like a duck (Casey Anthony's trunk reeked of a corpse, not to mention a hair from a decomposed body was found inside it), quacks like a duck (everything found at the scene of Caylee's body could be linked back to the Anthony home, Casey never bothered to tell anyone that her daughter was missing, and when she did she lied and said she was kidnapped), then it must be a duck.

Guilty of what? If you are talking about the charges or child abuse, first degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter of a child, what bits of evidence are you talking about that led you to that conclusion given the prosecution's theory?

Guilty of first degree murder. According to the defense theory that you continue to hold so near and dear, Caylee died on June 16, 2008. Yet her sweet innocent mother Casey decided on July 2nd to get a tattoo which read, "Bella Vita" (beautiful life). And if she died accidentally, why was there duct tape found on her skull? To quote the autopsy report, "Several overlapping pieces of duct tape, over the anterior portion of the skull, including mandible and a portion of the maxilla; Duct tape still attached to scalp hairs". Yes, it was an accidental deah for sure. :rolleyes:

So now you are comparing her to Dahmer? That's a cavernous stretch.

Well Dahmer was obviously the more disturbed of the two, but my point was simply that he was not violent to the "outword world" around him, yet he still slaughtered several innocent people.

So saying who cares makes it not matter to the issue of it disproving the prosecution's theory as to the motive in this case?

Huh?

My point was regardless of the fact that she could pawn Caylee off on her parents, she was still going to be a "hinderance" in the mind of Casey Anthony. She would have to have scheduled her carousing schemes around Caylee, her parents weren't always going to be there to watch Caylee, and lastly a mother who doesn't report her daughter missing for a full month is obviously one that did not love or care for her child.

Yes, and it was George's and was accessible by anyone in that household and it wasn't proven to be the instrument that caused Caylee's death in this case.

Yet why was it found attached to her skull? If she accidentally did drown, as the defense contends, why did Casey feel the need to wrap her dead daughter's head with duct tape over and over? The duct tape was places on before the body was decomposed, based off of the position of the lower jaw when found, so again why would anyone feel the need to wrap the jaw with duct tape if they were trying to cover up a drowning? And why wouldn't they just call the authorities immediately after they found Caylee in the pool since there was a possibility that they could have saved her life?


The one hair was among hundreds found in the trunk and the experts could not be definite with their finding that it was from a decomposed body. Even so, if it were that doesn't prove murder, just transport.

Because the evidence to that makes more logical sense than murder.

It's logical to find your child dead in a swimming pool and instead of calling 911 you decide to grab a roll of duct tape and some trash bags and ditch the body in a wooded area near your home like you're taking out tomorrow's trash? Is that logical?

Could this be from Jun 21, 2005 when Casey was pregnant with Caylee and her talking about not aborting her or giving her up for adoption? It seems to make sense in that context just like it seems to make sense in the context of the prosecution's case. So ultimately you should discount it as evidence to support her guilt or innocence since there is no way to tell exactly what year that entry was made.

I'll give you this one, I could see how it may have been her talking about keeping Caylee.

Then the only things they came up with as far as physical evidence was the stuff found in the trunk, which only would show transport and the duct tape on and near the body, which wasn't shown to be the instrument which caused Caylee's death and wasn't proven to be on her before or after she was dead and that's it as far as trying to prove she murdered and dumped Caylee's body.

That's incorrect. The coroner stated that the duct tape was placed on before decomposition, since the "mandible" was kept in place. The fact that duct tape was found in such a way suggests premeditation.

This just goes to show that when you push a story a certain way in the media for so long and keep piling onto it and the other side is never even considered (or laughed off/ridiculed) then it becomes truth in most peoples' minds whether it is true or not. And piling elements onto the story that aren't substantiated through hard evidence or are just outright lies, then it doesn't matter as long as you can keep piling it on. If anything, this case has taught me to not let the press formulate their opinions in my mind and consider all sides to stories first, especially when there is no solid evidence that is indisputable.

Where is the evidence that supports Casey Anthony's innocence? Wasn't the defense team's theory that George was the one that disposed of Caylee's body after finding her dead in the swimming pool? Why was there not one attempt made to show the whereabouts of Casey Anthony on the day Caylee allegedly died? And why aren't the police investigating George, or charging him for that matter? Could it be because after an intense investigation the only viable suspect they could come up with who would have the means and the motive would be Casey Anthony herself? I think so.

There is nothing to speculate. If it walks like a duck (Casey Anthony's trunk reeked of a corpse, not to mention a hair from a decomposed body was found inside it), quacks like a duck (everything found at the scene of Caylee's body could be linked back to the Anthony home, Casey never bothered to tell anyone that her daughter was missing, and when she did she lied and said she was kidnapped), then it must be a duck.

What do you mean there is nothing to speculate? The whole case was based on speculations from the smell in the trunk, to the cause and manner of death, to who placed the body in the woods, to the motive, to the diary entry, to the tattoo, to why Casey was not telling the truth, etc., etc.


Guilty of first degree murder. According to the defense theory that you continue to hold so near and dear, Caylee died on June 16, 2008. Yet her sweet innocent mother Casey decided on July 2nd to get a tattoo which read, "Bella Vita" (beautiful life).

And what does getting a tattoo with the words Beautiful Life prove exactly? Not a thing. Another piece of "evidence" that she murdered her kid, obviously.


And if she died accidentally, why was there duct tape found on her skull? To quote the autopsy report, "Several overlapping pieces of duct tape, over the anterior portion of the skull, including mandible and a portion of the maxilla; Duct tape still attached to scalp hairs". Yes, it was an accidental deah for sure. :rolleyes:

Why couldn't the investigators conclusive say that it was what caused her death? It could have been placed there to stage a scene and since there was no DNA on it that matched Caylee, even after months of decomposition, then you can't say positively that the death was caused by the duct tape. Plus there was no evidence on the bones from suffocation.


Well Dahmer was obviously the more disturbed of the two, but my point was simply that he was not violent to the "outword world" around him, yet he still slaughtered several innocent people.

Dahmer had several incidents of violence and disturbing sexual behavior in his past though, well before the period of time where he was classified as a serial killer.


My point was regardless of the fact that she could pawn Caylee off on her parents, she was still going to be a "hinderance" in the mind of Casey Anthony. She would have to have scheduled her carousing schemes around Caylee, her parents weren't always going to be there to watch Caylee, and lastly a mother who doesn't report her daughter missing for a full month is obviously one that did not love or care for her child.

If she was already dead, why would it matter what she did after and how would that connect in any way to how the child died other than to formulate speculation?


Yet why was it found attached to her skull?

Could be to stage the scene. And why would someone do that? You are thinking that she is a rational person and there was no indication at all of her being rational throughout the entire investigation.


If she accidentally did drown, as the defense contends, why did Casey feel the need to wrap her dead daughter's head with duct tape over and over?

Because it wasn't wrapped around the head "over and over". There were 3 short pieces of tape, not a long continuous piece that could be wrapped around the entire head, much less wrapped around the head more than once. Stop embellishing.


The duct tape was places on before the body was decomposed, based off of the position of the lower jaw when found, so again why would anyone feel the need to wrap the jaw with duct tape if they were trying to cover up a drowning? And why wouldn't they just call the authorities immediately after they found Caylee in the pool since there was a possibility that they could have saved her life?

Because she wasn't a rational thinking person. She had covered up everything she did for the past 2 years and she probably thought she would be in trouble for not keeping her eye on Caylee as she was swimming. She also didn't want to have to explain to her mother why she was not at work, then she would have to explain all of her lies to Cindy about the nanny and the other imaginary people she made up, so she decided it was best to cover it up to continue to maintain her lies she told. And she didn't want her mother to go through the guilt of losing Caylee because their pool was what killed her, so she kept holding it from her.



It's logical to find your child dead in a swimming pool and instead of calling 911 you decide to grab a roll of duct tape and some trash bags and ditch the body in a wooded area near your home like you're taking out tomorrow's trash? Is that logical?

Nope, and I'm not saying she was thinking logically at all.



I'll give you this one, I could see how it may have been her talking about keeping Caylee.

Yes, and yet they still entered into evidence many other highly speculative pieces of evidence besides that to prove their case since there was no one piece that was able to show that she definitely murdered Caylee.


That's incorrect. The coroner stated that the duct tape was placed on before decomposition, since the "mandible" was kept in place. The fact that duct tape was found in such a way suggests premeditation.

They couldn't even determine if it was the cause of death, yet it suggests pre-meditation?


Where is the evidence that supports Casey Anthony's innocence?

That's the crazy thing about this case. There is speculative evidence that could prove both that she murdered her and speculative evidence that she didn't and so you can't really say for certain that she did or didn't, but when you look at the hard evidence that wasn't embellished, the theory that an irrational person would see her child drown and it make her even more irrational to the point of covering it up (after years of covering stuff up and lying) would make a lot more sense given her history rather than her (without a hint of violence or a hint of abuse towards her child) murdering her and planning that portion of it, yet hastily plan the cover up of it. You would think someone who was great at lies and cover ups could have done a better job of disposing of the corpse and weave a better cover up than the very flimsy cover up she attempted with police.


Wasn't the defense team's theory that George was the one that disposed of Caylee's body after finding her dead in the swimming pool? Why was there not one attempt made to show the whereabouts of Casey Anthony on the day Caylee allegedly died?
Because the defense didn't need to show that since the burden of proof was the prosecution's and they just needed to disprove the case the prosecution presented.


And why aren't the police investigating George, or charging him for that matter? Could it be because after an intense investigation the only viable suspect they could come up with who would have the means and the motive would be Casey Anthony herself? I think so.
Probably because she was the main focus since she was the mother who was always supposed to be with her and George used to be a police investigator.

And I get where you are coming from, I do. I mean when you look at this case on face value, it looks like she committed murder, but when you look at all of the main evidence presented, and think about who testified to what, then it doesn't show that she definitely, without a shred of doubt killed Caylee.

"And she didn't want her mother to go through the guilt of losing Caylee because their pool was what killed her, so she kept holding it from her."

Awe!! that's so sweet and considerate! so is that why she kept making up excuses as to why Her Mother or Father couldn't talk or see Caylee?

You are giving her a little too much credit. it's been made perfectly clear that Casey is a manipulative and a selfish person. I'm not going to bother rehashing the evidence.

Didn't want her Mom to feel guilty? yeah right. more like Casey didn't want to get in trouble for the death of her kid. seems like the tape and trashbag on Caylee were all part of her hastily thought up "kidnapping" plan.

No matter how you dice it she's guilty. whether it's for actually killing her child and covering it up or dumping the body (if it was an accident) and failing to report it.

Just my 2 cents... nothing against you. this case just really gets under my skin.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Casey is completely innocent, or that she was a great mother, or even a likable person. I definitely think she was involved in the death of her child. But we don't know if it was 1st degree, pre-meditated murder or an accident that was covered up. Both are crimes, but they have vastly different punishments. How could the jury convict her of 1st degree murder when they don't even know the cause of death? I think that is where the reasonable doubt lies.
Did she lie? Yes, and she was convicted of it. Did she neglect her child? I think she did and should have been found guilty on that charge. But there was no real way to tell if she was guilty of 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter. She may not be innocent, but I understand and agree with why the jury did what they did.

And I do think that if the prosecution had gone for a lesser charge like manslaughter or reckless endangerment, she would have been found guilty.