I think I better unsubscribe from this thread.

WG, love you, but you yourself said that you didn't read about the case, didn't watch the trial, but here you are stating things that aren't even factual, defending the jurors for their verdict, when you yourself said you know nothing about this trial, which is obvious.

It just upsets me, because I have yet to speak to one person that actually followed this trial (not the stories on TV, but the actual trial), that thought Casey was innocent of murder.

I don't know what happened, but I do know that Casey killed her child. I wasn't there, but the evidence speaks for itself, and this baby killer is free as of next week.

It sickens me.

I can't talk about this further, I don't want to argue about this, especially when the facts aren't being stated. No disrespect intended, but if you haven't read the entire story, or seen the entire trial, or know all the details, you don't have the information needed to debate this, and you have no right to a verdict.

I'm out. This is just upsetting me, and the verdict itself was upsetting enough.

Love you all.

RIP Caylee, I wish you had found justice, but I hope you rest in peace.

Attachment 36715

Quote:

---

And maybe Caylee drowned accidentally and Casey panicked. Remember, she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

---

Oi!

Okay, one last comment before I unsubscribe.

So, the new story is that Caylee drowned and Casey panicked?

So, why the duct tape? Why the chloroform? Why the 84 visits to site on how to make chloroform before this child drowned (Casey visited those sites, it was proven the both Cindy and George were at work when the searches were made and the sties were visited, even though Cindy lied and tried to take the blame)? The visits on sites on how to break someone's neck, how to make household weapons, etc. etc. Why the garbage bags? Why the laundry bag? Why being thrown away like garbage in an area used by locals to toss their garbage? Why the lies that the child was kidnapped? Why the partying for 31 days while her daughter was lying in a ditch rotting? Why the tattoo? Why any of it?

That's just a few of the highlight of the actual evidence presented to the jury.

I suggest you watch the trial. Watch the actual evidence that was presented. Maybe then you'll see why I feel the way I do, and the way 2/3's of the population, most of which watched the trial, feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

WG, there was an autopsy. The cause of death couldn't be determined. But, the Medical Examiner did say that she has never seen an accidental drowning go unreported. When asked on the stand how many accidental drownings are reported, she said 100%. That doesn't leave any wiggle room.

That same M.E. said that never in her many years as a medical examiner has she seen an accidental drowning where the child's mouth and nose were duct taped, the baby was wrapped in a blanket, stuffed into two garbage bags, a laundry bag, and then tossed away like garbage.

When asked for her professional opinion, she said that she wouldn't hesitate in saying that the cause of death was murder. So, who murdered her if not Casey?

A strand of Caylee's hair was found in the trunk of Casey's car. It had post mortem banding on it. In other words, that hair came from a dead body.

When you said that the jurors weren't there when Casey died, I have to ask. Is that what it would take? Is that the evidence needed? If so, then many murders will walk free, because there's very rarely a witness to the crime.

This is real life, not TV. You won't be lucky and get a video of the person killing the other person. There isn't always DNA. There aren't always fingerprints. There's very rarely witnesses. This is real life, and the case was damning, and still she was found not guilty of murder.

My thought, the jury wasn't instructed on what reasonable doubt is, because there is no reasonable doubt. The jury expected the video, the DNA, the fingerprints, etc. etc. They didn't understand that that's not the norm, that the way the body was placed, the fact that that area was under water for months, made all that evidence impossible to gather.

The presence of chloroform, a decomposing body, in the trunk of Casey's car, the bags, all the things I've mentioned over and over again. That's clear evidence to murder. It's not at all conducive to an accident.

So I ask again, if not murder, what's a reasonable scenario to what happened.

Remember, George was at work, as was Cindy. Casey was alone with Caylee. So, how did this baby die and end up tossed away like trash in the woods?

---

Your passion is compelling, Altenweg. But it's not just passion - again you have laid out the facts in such a logical fashion, that, imo, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as you have. And as I have.

Dear Wondergirl, NO, it's not ABSOLUTE proof. In law, no such standard exists. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? In my opinion, it is. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

WG, love you

---

Alty, love you, but you yourself said you do not know whether Casey killed Caylee.

Quote:

---

Casey was innocent of murder

---

I never said she is innocent of murder.

Quote:

---

I don't know what happened, but I do know that Casey killed her child.

---

Why didn't you testify?

You DO NOT KNOW Casey killed her child. You know she was horrible about a lot of things after Caylee died, but you Do NOT KNOW that she killed her child.

WG, I have watched this entire thing for 3 years, since Casey was arrested.

I watched the entire trial. I've read everything and watched everything there was to see or read about this case. I don't know where you got that I didn't read about the case. If I typed that, typo, it happens.

I do know she killed her child, because the evidence leaves no room for doubt. There is no other scenario that makes sense.

I didn't testify because I'm not a witness. I am someone that knows a lot about this case simply because I've watched every second of it.

You say I don't know that she killed her child. I disagree. No, I wasn't there when she did it. I didn't see a video tape of her doing it, but I know without any doubt that she killed her child.

I'm against the death penalty. I'm glad I live in a country that doesn't have the death penalty. But, let me say this. If I had been on the jury, Casey Anthony would be on death row, awaiting lethal injection. I'd have no problem at all convicting her of death. That's how strongly I believe she killed her child. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep making that verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

I don't know where you got that I didn't read about the case. If I typed that, typo, it happens.

---

I had neglected to delete that part of what you had written back to me. I since have deleted it.

Quote:

---

I do know she killed her child, because the evidence leaves no room for doubt. There is no other scenario that makes sense.

---

Many people agree with you. I believe it is very possible, but that is not how our legal system works -- the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee. It IS possible the little girl drowned or died in some other way.

Quote:

---

I am someone that knows a lot about this case simply because I've watched every second of it.

---

"Alot" is two words. :)

You said you have listened to commentators and read newspaper articles and talked with people about it during the trial, so you have gone beyond what a juror ever was able to do.

Quote:

---

I know without any doubt that she killed her child.

---

No, you don't. No one (except Casey) does.

Quote:

---

I'd have no problem at all convicting her of death.

---

And if it came out later, after you'd convicted her and she'd been put to death, that she was innocent after all, then what? Oh, well.

The prosecution should have gone after a verdict of second-degree murder (no premeditation) or voluntary manslaughter, but they didn't. They over-reached and went for the brass ring, first-degree murder, but didn't prove their case and missed missed grabbing the ring. They are the ones who have disrespected Caylee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Your passion is compelling, Altenweg. But it's not just passion - again you have laid out the facts in such a logical fashion, that, imo, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as you have. And as I have.

Dear Wondergirl, NO, it's not ABSOLUTE proof. In law, no such standard exists. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? In my opinion, it is. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

---

Thank you Athos. :)

This entire case has left me cold, has left me mourning not only the loss of a beautiful little girl, a child that should have had a lifetime ahead of her, but also mourning the lack of justice, the lack of closure on this case. I know that her killer, the last person to see her alive, the person that snuffed out her life, will walk free on July 17. I know it beyond any doubt.

I too disagree with Wondergirl and all the people that think that justice was served. It wasn't. Not by a long shot.

There is no other reasonable scenario other then murder, and no one else was with Caylee, other then Casey, on the last day of her life.

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a reasonable scenario. WG mentioned that accidental drowning is a possibility. I would like to know how. How does a child accidentally drown and end up in the woods, duct tape on her mouth and nose, chloroform in her system, in two garbage bags and a laundry bag, and her mother, that very night, knowing he child is dead, goes to her boyfriends house, goes out to rent movies, acts as if nothing happened? How?

Four days later Casey enters a hot body contest, dances the night away at a club, as if nothing happened.

For 31 days, THIRTY ONE, Casey tells no one about this, and when her mother, Cindy, finally finds Casey, confronts her, asks her where Caylee is, Casey says that the baby was kidnapped by a nonexistent nanny. For 3 years that's the story she clings to, until trial, when the defense says that Casey claims Caylee drowned. She also told police that she worked at Universal Studios, held onto that lie, even let the police take her to Universal, and didn't admit that she hadn't worked there for years until they checked the records. She stole from friends, made up imaginary people, not just one nanny, but many other imaginary friends, searched how to make chloroform, went to one site about how to make chloroform 84 times (a syringe with chloroform was found at the scene by Caylees remains), but also looked up neck breaking, how to make weapons at home etc. etc. Chloroform was detected in the trunk of Casey's car, along with the smell of decomposition (detected by 2 cadaver dogs trained to only hit on decomposition of human remains), and a hair (belonging to Caylee), was found, with post mortem banding.

Accidental drowning is not a crime, it's not something the state can prosecute. So why not mention that it was an accidental drowning during the three years she's sitting in jail? Why cling to the lie about kidnapping? Why face the death penalty when it was an accident?

Anyone have an answer to that, because I'd love to hear it.

I'm so upset about this. I want to unsubscribe because it's tearing me apart, but I can't hit that unsubscribe button.

Caylee didn't get justice, and I feel that I must get justice for her here, if not real justice, at least justice in making people realize that her killer is walking free next Sunday.

WG, I really urge you to watch the trial, watch the evidence presented. Until then, I really don't think you can reach a verdict. Not a valid one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The prosecution should have gone after a verdict of second-degree murder (no premeditation) or voluntary manslaughter, but they didn't. They over-reached and went for the brass ring, first-degree murder, but didn't prove their case and missed missed grabbing the ring. They are the ones who have disrespected Caylee.

---

The reason that the prosecutor went for first degree premeditated murder was the Google searches for how to make chloroform, and the other Google searches. They did charge for 1st degree murder, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and aggravated child abuse. She was found not guilty of those three charges.

In other words, they went for all the charges they could, and the jury found her not guilty of all of those three charges.

They didn't miss the mark, the jury did. :mad:

Quote:

---

And if it came out later, after you'd convicted her and she'd been put to death, that she was innocent after all, then what? Oh, well.

---

Just have to comment on this part.

WG, I know she's not innocent. That's the point I'm making. I have no doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, or anything in between. I know she killed her child, so I know that she'll never be "proven" innocent. There's no proof of that, but there's tons of proof that she's guilty. So no, I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over her being put to death. I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd know that justice for Caylee was served.

Remember, I'm against the death penalty. The thought of the death penalty makes me sick, because I always wonder (in most cases), if the convicted person is actually guilty. When it comes to Casey Anthony, I don't wonder. I know she's guilty. Yes, I know. I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I know. That's how strong the evidence is.

There is not other explanation. I would have no remorse convicting Casey to death. None at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Just have to comment on this part.

WG, I know she's not innocent. That's the point I'm making. I have no doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, or anything in between. I know she killed her child, so I know that she'll never be "proven" innocent. There's no proof of that, but there's tons of proof that she's guilty. So no, I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over her being put to death. I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd know that justice for Caylee was served.

Remember, I'm against the death penalty. The thought of the death penalty makes me sick, because I always wonder (in most cases), if the convicted person is actually guilty. When it comes to Casey Anthony, I don't wonder. I know she's guilty. Yes, I know. I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I know. That's how strong the evidence is.

There is not other explanation. I would have no remorse convicting Casey to death. None at all.

---

The more I read about this case, some things become very obvious.

Those who watched the case from gavel to gavel on the TV, or those who were paid commentators on the various networks covering the case - in other words, those with the greatest amount of information and knowledge about the events - are 99.9% unanimous in the guilt of the defendant.

Those who got their information from news stories and headlines - never quite the same thing as being there, whether in person or television - are split between guilt or innocence.

The not guilty crowd often cites the sanctity of the justice system, the wonder of juries, and, often, propose scenarios that are simply impossible when faced with the actual facts. Like Altenweg, I want to bang my head against the wall when I read these things.

These scenarios often point the finger to the prosecution - they didn't prove their case, they should have gone for a lesser charge, etc. When all the evidence - and I mean ALL - points to murder, the prosecution is legally required to charge appropriately. No prosecutor ever diminishes a charge so obvious as this case. Should they have charged Casey Anthony with littering? No doubt, a guilty verdict would have ensued. But that's not how it works.

Comments about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter simply fly in the face of the evidence. That would require belief that the mother found her daughter accidentally drowned, never called the authorities, hid the body for a month in the trunk of her car, with her dead daughter in the trunk went out and partied for a month and got tattoos, invented a fairy kidnapper baby-sitter, then dumped her daughter in garbage bags into a swamp where, as a last incomprehensible action, sealed the child's mouth and nose with duct tape. And left a syringe with chloroform laying around.

People who are involved with accidents do NOT act this way.

I know this basically repeats Altenweg's comment, but apparently it bears repeating.

The jury failed - wanting a CSI-type of conclusive evidence (as perfectly noted in the comments of juror #3 and an alternate juror), not understanding circumstantial evidence, throwing their common sense out the window, they returned a verdict of not guilty.

Quote:

---

The jury failed - wanting a CSI-type of conclusive evidence (as perfectly noted in the comments of juror #3 and an alternate juror), not understanding circumstantial evidence, throwing their common sense out the window, they returned a verdict of not guilty.

---

Bravo Athos! This is exactly why a not guilty verdict was found. The jurors wanted more then could be presented, more then real life cases can present. They expected someone to see the crime, they expected a motive, they expected DNA. That only happens on TV, and this isn't TV.

Of all the people I've talked to about this case, the only ones that say that the not guilty verdict was just, are people that really don't know much about the case, haven't followed the trial, and really don't know the entire case. Those of us that actually watched the trial, well, like Athos said, 99.9% of those people would have convicted of murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Comments about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter simply fly in the face of the evidence.

---

I had said second-degree murder (not premeditated, not planned) would have been the better charge. The jury would have agreed and convicted her. I do not know what penalties there are -- life imprisonment is one, I would guess.

First-degree includes premeditation. It's very probable, if Casey killed her daughter, she did it on the spur of the moment (drugged out?) and hadn't planned it -- second-degree murder.

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion." Involuntary manslaughter is not a consideration at all..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I had said second-degree murder (not premeditated, not planned) would have been the better charge. The jury would have agreed and convicted her. I do not know what penalties there are -- life imprisonment is one, I would guess.

First-degree includes premeditation. It's very probable, if Casey killed her daughter, she did it on the spur of the moment (drugged out?) and hadn't planned it -- second-degree murder.

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion." Involuntary manslaughter is not a consideration at all..

---

It's completely IMPROBABLE that she killed on the spur of the moment.

84 computer searches to find out how to make chloroform, finding a syringe with chloroform, and the presence of chloroform in the trunk of her car where the body rotted for 31 days (!) definitely shows premeditation.

Duct tape over the mouth and nose does NOT indicate spur-of-the-moment.

Again, bravo Athos.

The searches (84) for how to make chloroform, the searches on how to break someone's neck, searches on how to make weapons at home, etc. etc. show premeditation. That's why they went for the death penalty. It was proven that Casey made those searches. If she wasn't planning on killing her child, why was she learning how to make chloroform? Also, chloroform was detected in the trunk of the car where Caylee's body decomposed, and there was a syringe of chloroform found near Caylee's body.

Add to that the duct tape on Caylee's mouth and nose, and not just a small strip, but wrapped around the head, and it's very clear that this was not a spur of the moment killing.

I was under the impression that Casey couldn't make money off a book deal or a movie because she had been civilly sued by "Zanny"

Hi guys, I have decided to unsubscribe from this thread. Continuing to read this every day is having me in tears, and literally sick to my stomach. I just can not comprehend the reasons behind this "mother's" actions, and the thoughts of what happened to that poor baby is just literally making physically ill. I am finding myself obsessed with this, thinking about it all the time and crying constantly for this little girl! I know it sounds silly, I never met her, but just the thought of what this poor baby went through horrifies me.

I know I stared the thread, and I really would like you guys to continue posting here. Anything that educates people on what has happened in this case is fine by me.The facts and the points made here are very clear, and I think anyone who has read this who may have had a doubt is now clear on some of the facts of the case. I really have nothing to add except my feelings, which, I have made well clear. I think Casey Anthony is guilty as sin, and I hope in one way or another she gets what she deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurora_Bell

I was under the impression that Casey couldn't make money off a book deal or a movie because she had been civilly sued by "Zanny"

---

She doesn't have a book deal or movie deal yet. She does have a million dollar offer to do a TV interview, which she can accept.

I don't think the law suit by "Zanny" will play out. Casey did lie about Zanny the nanny, and they did find someone with that exact name, but, Casey never claimed that that particular Zaneida was the person she was talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurora_Bell

Hi guys, I have decided to unsubscribe from this thread. Continuing to read this every day is having me in tears, and literally sick to my stomach. I just can not comprehend the reasons behind this "mother's" actions, and the thoughts of what happened to that poor baby is just literally making physically ill. I am finding my self obsessed with this, thinking about it all the time and crying constantly for this little girl! I know it sounds silly, I never met her, but just the thought of what this poor baby went through horrifies me.

I know I stared the thread, and I really would like you guys to continue posting here. Anything that educates people on what has happened in this case is fine by me.The facts and the points made here are very clear, and I think anyone who has read this who may have had a doubt is now clear on some of the facts of the case. I really have nothing to add except my feelings, which, I have made well clear. I think Casey Anthony is guilty as sin, and I hope in one way or another she gets what she deserves.

---

I understand Bella.

I've wanted to unsubscribe for a while. This case also has me in tears. What makes it worse is when people that don't even know anything about the trial, make comments, suggest that the verdict was accurate, post what they think are facts, that aren't facts at all.

If you're going to comment, at least watch the trial so you know what you're commenting about. Until then, you have no opinion, at least not one I want to hear. :(

Can anyone point to me proof that this was a lone juror holdout. This verdict went down pretty quickly given the length of the trial.

No DNA in the trunk... hmmmm . If the glove don't fit...

Guess I'll go tune into Nancy Grace to find out what I should think.

Late to the thread because I've been overseas.

Anyone want to start a pool about how long it takes before someone bumps the Murderess off? Just kidding, wasn't serious... but I won't be surprised if it does happen.

I have no doubt she actually did it, or had a hand in it... they were just unable to provide that "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof required, particularly in a capital murder charge which would have the highest hurdle for good reason. But then, I wasn't on the jury.

I think she is a narcissistic waste of human flesh based on how she behaved alone. What parent would wait 31 days much less go partying before reporting their missing child.

Personally I think the prosecutors blew it by HOW they charged her, and what they charged her with.

Death penalty cases have the highest level of standards of proof, and for good reason... but she's not exempt from civil charges... thats how the got OJ after all. THAT would NOT be double jeopardy.

They should have had other charges with lesser punishments that might have had a different outcome.

I never heard about a lone juror holdout, even if I had expected to... but then I was traveling and what I did hear was spotty at best.

Great contribution Smoothy. As time passes and I have been able to approach the situation less emotionally, I can see the position the jurors were in more clearly. I wonder if this is why I've yet to be selected for jury duty?

The prosecution failed Caylee.

Today I learned that a juror quit her job for fear of retaliation for their decision. There has been a bit of a mob mentality since this case began. Best guess is that Casey Anthony will require the protections of the witness protection program . Apparently the jurors will require it also.

Mob justice is not justice regardless of the outcome of the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Today I learned that a juror quit her job for fear of retaliation for their decision. There has been a bit of a mob mentality since this case began. Best guess is that Casey Anthony will require the protections of the witness protection program . Apparently the jurors will require it also.

Mob justice is not justice regardless of the outcome of the case.

---

I agree Tomber.

The jury, even though I didn't agree with their verdict, doesn't deserve to be harassed and threatened because of the verdict.

The people that are making threats are no better then Casey. The law is the law, and people should follow it.

Can we all just leave this thread alone. It is only rehashing, alty was upset, not able to carry on with the thread and was going to unsuscribe.

AB doesn't want to carry on with it.

Everything is supposition. I feel badly for the jurors. As you can imagine, they were chosen at random and landed in a rats nest.

I think I mentioned before, child offenders do not last long in jail, meaning, they don't come out alive.

tick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southamerica

Great contribution Smoothy. As time passes and I have been able to approach the situation less emotionally, I can see the position the jurors were in more clearly. I wonder if this is why I've yet to be selected for jury duty?

The prosecution failed Caylee.

---

The prosecution failed because there was no hard evidence, the trail had gone cold. Unusual for so short a time but that happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

Can we all just leave this thread alone. It is only rehashing, alty was upset, not able to carry on with the thread and was going to unsuscribe.

AB doesnt want to carry on with it.

Everything is supposition. I feel badly for the jurors. As you can imagine, they were chosen at random and landed in a rats nest.

I think I mentioned before, child offenders do not last long in jail, meaning, they dont come out alive.

tick

---

Tick, I do want to unsubscribe, but the fact is, I can't. The truth has to be told. The people that are fighting for the conviction don't know the facts, and that's very clear. They haven't bothered to actually view the evidence, or watch the trial. Frankly, I don't even know why they're posting, since they don't know the facts.

I agree that the jurors landed in a rats nest. They saw what they saw, thought she was guilty (all the jurors that have spoken out said that they thought she was guilty), but for some reason they weren't drilled on reasonable doubt, and let a murderer walk free. That doesn't mean that their lives should be hell because of this, and the people that are making death threats etc. well, shame on them!

Child molesters don't last long in jail, but Casey isn't a child molester, she's a child killer, and she gets out on Sunday. She won't be in jail long enough for anyone to do anything to her, and anyone that does attempt to end her life is just as bad as her.

She should be in jail for life, or facing the death penalty. Sadly, that didn't happen. Now that she's free, now that the "justice system" has run its course and let a killer go free, anyone that decides to take matters into their own hands, well, they're just as guilty as she is.

I hope karma works. What comes around goes around. Hopefully that will happen to Casey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

I think I mentioned before, child offenders do not last long in jail, meaning, they dont come out alive.

tick

---

Casey Anthony is being RELEASED from jail - Sunday.

Did you think she was staying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Casey Anthony is being RELEASED from jail - Sunday.

Did you think she was staying?

---

Exactly. She's out in 5 days, depending on where you live. ;)

I am upset by this thread. Not because of the content, but because the people arguing for the Not guilty verdict don't know the case at all. Most of them admit that until this thread, or others like it, they didn't even know about the case. They're guessing when it comes to the facts, and that's very clear in their posts.

I'm only upset because I do know the case, and I do know how the trial went (I watched the whole thing). I made my opinion of guilty based on the trial, not Nancy Grace or any other show.

I only ask that the people that comment here at least take the time to actually watch the trial, know what's involved. Until you do that, your opinion means very little, because you don't have the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

the prosecution failed because there was no hard evidence,

---

Apparently, you haven't read the previous posts here. Some of us have gone to great lengths trying to explain the difference between "hard" evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

Had you taken the time, you would not have posted the above.

Altenweg - I think we were posting at the same time. Some duplication, but not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Apparently, you haven't read the previous posts here. Some of us have gone to great lengths trying to explain the difference between "hard" evidence, and circumstantial evidence.

Had you taken the time, you would not have posted the above.

---

Greenie!

I wish I could give you a real one.

I agree. There's rarely hard evidence, but the circumstantial evidence in this case was overwhelming.

Again I ask, and please, feel free to answer. If Caylee wasn't killed by her mother, then how did she die? What other scenario (keeping in mind the chloroform, the duct tape, the garbage bags, the laundry bags, the smell of decomposition in the trunk of Casey's car, the hair found in Casey's car, belonging to Caylee, with post mortem banding on the root, etc. etc.) makes sense? Drowning doesn't make sense. Also, keep in mind the lies about a nanny kidnapping Caylee. The partying. Hiding your daughters "disappearance" for 31 days, and again, etc. etc.

What happened to Caylee if she wasn't killed by Casey?

Anyone have a reasonable explanation that disputes the prosecutions case? Because if you don't, there's no reasonable doubt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Altenweg - I think we were posting at the same time. Some duplication, but not a problem.

---

LOL!

Athos, I think this entire thread is a duplication, you and I pointing out why a Guilty verdict should have been rendered. I feel like we're repeating ourselves over and over again, but only a few people are listening.

I really want to know what explanation the "not guilty" posters have for all that happened to Caylee. So far not one of them has come up with a "reasonable" scenario, other then murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Greenie!

I wish I could give you a real one.

I agree. There's rarely hard evidence, but the circumstantial evidence in this case was overwhelming.

Again I ask, and please, feel free to answer. If Caylee wasn't killed by her mother, then how did she die? What other scenario (keeping in mind the chloroform, the duct tape, the garbage bags, the laundry bags, the smell of decomposition in the trunk of Casey's car, the hair found in Casey's car, belonging to Caylee, with post mortem banding on the root, etc. etc.) makes sense? Drowning doesn't make sense. Also, keep in mind the lies about a nanny kidnapping Caylee. The partying. Hiding your daughters "disappearance" for 31 days, and again, etc. etc.

What happened to Caylee if she wasn't killed by Casey?

Anyone have a reasonable explanation that disputes the prosecutions case? Because if you don't, there's no reasonable doubt!

---

None here that I have seen... I'm thoroughly convinced Casey did it. Based on what I have heard on the case. Since I wasn't actually on the jury... I can present my opinion based on what I have heard thus far.

And the really sad thing is... there are hundreds of similar cases a year we DON'T hear about. That was hardly a rare or special case... just one the media decided to focus in on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

None here that I have seen.....I'm thoroughly convinced Casey did it. Based on what I have heard on the case. Since I wasn't actually on the jury....I can present my opinion based on what I have heard thus far.

And the really sad thing is....there are hundreds of of similar cases a year we DON'T hear about. That was hardly a rare or special case....just one the media decided to focus in on.

---

There have been a few posters, people that admitted they didn't follow the case, posting that she may not be guilty. I don't mind a difference of opinion, as long at the opinion is educated. It makes me mad when people that don't know about the case, have no idea what evidence there was, post that the verdict was just.

I'm not talking about you Smoothy, but read the entire thread, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm just upset because I did my homework. I watched this case unfold for 3 years. I watched every second of the case, every day in court, every person that was brought to the witness stand, all the evidence. I watched it all, and I'm still watching the after math.

My belief is that the jury wasn't well educated in "reasonable doubt". Most of them said they thought Casey was guilty, but wanted a "smoking gun", or DNA evidence, or a clear motive, or witness. That makes me mad. This is real life, not TV or the movies. The body was under water for months. NO DNA! I've never seen a case that actually has video tape of the crime being committed. Motive, that's easy, Casey wanted freedom. The jury wanted too much. They weren't smart enough to realize that the things they wanted, in real life, aren't always possible. There was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the case. IMO. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

reasonable doubt

---

Quote:

---

reasonable scenario

---

You have mentioned the two stated scenarios over and over again. Since no one (except Casey) knows and can prove exactly what happened, there is reasonable doubt. A second scenario is that something else could have happened that caused Caylee's death, and Casey took it and ran with it.

Alty, I am 95% certain she killed her daughter, but there is no hard evidence, just circumstantial evidence. Yes, she surfed for chlorophyll/chloroform information. Yes, she partied during those 31 days Caylee was "missing." Yes, there was tons of other circumstantial evidence.

All through this thread, I have never said she did not kill her daughter; I have never said she was innocent. The prosecution did not prove their case -- "not guilty," i.e. "not proven." That is what all of the jurors brought in as a verdict. Meanwhile, the public judged Casey as guilty beginning on Day One of the trial.

Quote:

---

Yes, she surfed for chlorophyll/chloroform information.

---

Have to correct this. Cindy (Casey's mother) said she searched for chlorophyll. Not Casey. Casey searched "how to make chloroform" and visited one particular website with that info 84 times!

Quote:

---

Since no one (except Casey) knows and can prove exactly what happened, there is reasonable doubt.

---

So, any case where the defendant claims innocence means a not guilty verdict? Of course Casey isn't going to admit she killed her child. The prosecution did prove reasonable doubt. They went past reasonable doubt. There was no other scenario because of the evidence.

Quote:

---

I have never said she did not kill her daughter; I have never said she was innocent.

---

WG, this is what doesn't make sense to me. So, are you saying you believe she killed her daughter? If so, why? You never said she was innocent. So, does that mean you believe she's guilty? What part of all of this made you come to that conclusion? Do you have a reason to believe in her guilt? If so, then obviously something in all of this proved that to you. So again, where's the reasonable doubt?

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just very passionate about this case. I have yet to hear one person say she's innocent, so I have to ask, why do you not believe in her innocence? And, if you don't believe, then why did the jury find her not guilty?

Reasonable doubt? There doesn't seem to be any. Not for anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

There have been a few posters, people that admitted they didn't follow the case, posting that she may not be guilty. I don't mind a difference of opinion, as long at the opinion is educated. It makes me mad when people that don't know about the case, have no idea what evidence there was, post that the verdict was just.

I'm not talking about you Smoothy, but read the entire thread, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm just upset because I did my homework. I watched this case unfold for 3 years. I watched every second of the case, every day in court, every person that was brought to the witness stand, all the evidence. I watched it all, and I'm still watching the after math.

My belief is that the jury wasn't well educated in "reasonable doubt". Most of them said they thought Casey was guilty, but wanted a "smoking gun", or DNA evidence, or a clear motive, or witness. That makes me mad. This is real life, not TV or the movies. The body was under water for months. NO DNA! I've never seen a case that actually has video tape of the crime being committed. Motive, that's easy, Casey wanted freedom. The jury wanted too much. They weren't smart enough to realize that the things they wanted, in real life, aren't always possible. There was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the case. IMO. :)

---

As I have heard described elsewhere... the problem is the legal definition of "Beyond a REASONABLE doubt" has some taken the meaning in far too many peoples minds to mean " Beyond ANY doubt". And those two things mean very different things.

And no... I didn't think you directed that at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

I'm just upset because I did my homework. I watched this case unfold for 3 years. I watched every second of the case, every day in court, every person that was brought to the witness stand, all the evidence. I watched it all, and I'm still watching the after math.

---

Did you sequester yourself and not read magazine and newspaper articles about the trial? Did you refuse to listen to anything on TV about it? Did you avoid any real-life or online chats about the trial during the trial? That's what the jury had to do.

Her suspicious behavior persuaded me, just like it persuaded you. Fortunately, the U.S. justice system requires more than suspicious behavior to win a conviction. In a courtroom contest between dueling narratives, our system grants an advantage to the defense. It puts the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Caylee's body was so badly decomposed that the cause of death could not be established. It is much more difficult to prove why somebody died when it can't be proven how that person died. In order to win the case, the defense had to provide a second scenario plausible enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's version of events. They did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Casey searched "how to make chloroform" and visited one particular website with that info 84 times!

---

Why was her mother checking out chlorophyll information?

And maybe before the 85th search, Caylee accidentally drowned and solved Casey's problem.

Quote:

---

So, any case where the defendant claims innocence means a not guilty verdict?

---

Apparently, you haven't been reading what I have been writing.

Quote:

---

You never said she was innocent. So, does that mean you believe she's guilty?

---

Her actual guilt or innocence wasn't the point of what I have ever written in this thread.