lzzoso Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Release date is now Sunday, July 17. And the wheel rolls on... If she does get out on Sunday, July 17, she will be able to watch the first episode of the fourth season of "Breaking Bad" on AMC. We all know that Casey "broke bad" when she murdered her daughter and then lied to the police and even her own lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetredwine Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) I am still in shock at this. As a parent her actions alone were beyond reproach. She walked in court today looking completely different than during the trial. Even IF that little girl drowned, as a parent you would call for help immediately. I just do not understand what is called our "Justice System". I wonder if we will ever know exactly what happened to little Caylee. Unfreakinbelievable, and so many people want children that can't have them...I really just cannot comprehend the outcome of this, all of it, her as a mother, the jury, the system. Pathetic. Problem is, our society has completely changed and justice (especially justice for children) has become practically impossible. Very few people nowadays can agree on the type of home life that children deserve, and kids often end up in horrific situations: The dead bodies of 3- and 4-year-old Wisconsin brothers were found in a parked car early Wednesday morning and the boyfriend of the children's mother was arrested ... Child endangerment laws exist in most places but their definition varies and disagreement as to what constitutes child endangerment is common. Edited July 8, 2011 by sweetredwine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Here's a theory about Caylee's killing I read today, boiled down to the bare essentials: Casey's dad abused her as a child. The dad then tries to do the same with Casey's daughter Caylee, accidentally killing her with the chloroform he was using to render her unconcious. Hence, the reason why gramps tried to kill himself. The article goes into some psychological reasons why Casey would try to help her dad cover it up, etc...okay, I found the article for you all to read... Why Casey Anthony's Verdict Makes Sense By Dr. Keith Ablow Published July 05, 2011 Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder, which makes good sense. Much of the state’s case rested on the fact that Casey didn’t seem grief-stricken at all after her daughter went missing. She actually went out dancing, had sex and got a tattoo. Yet, for those who cannot fathom how Casey Anthony could have gone out partying with men and spending money on clothes after the death of Caylee Anthony—unless she killed her daughter—there is another potential explanation. Some emotionally vulnerable people can experience mania—the “high” phase of bipolar disorder, essentially the opposite of depression—in the setting of unthinkable trauma or loss. Even if you despise Casey Anthony, you have to admit that the death of her daughter (if she did not kill her) would qualify as such a trauma or loss. Symptoms of mania could then ensue, including: overspending, hypersexual behavior, sleeplessness and a sense of euphoria (which would be seen in photographs as seeming joy). Indeed, one could imagine that a human being’s mind might well “snap” into mania if, for example, she were the victim of rape as a child (something Casey accuses her father of perpetrating), then learned that the man responsible for her rape had tried to sexually assault her daughter while using chloroform to drug her, only to cause her death “accidentally.” And, believe it or not, a young woman in denial of her assailant’s depravity, preferring to think she was actually “chosen” as a little girl over her mother, might even cover up for her assailant and the killer of her daughter, because she has been trained to hide his assaultiveness her whole life. She might even sit still for a long, long time, despite that man making the death of her daughter look like murder by a third individual. I’m not saying that anything really happened this way, but it could have. Really. And if it did, it would certainly explain why George Anthony would contemplate suicide in the middle of this case (Grandparents don’t routinely try to kill themselves when their grandchildren go missing or are found dead; in fact, I have never, ever heard of it happening). And it would also explain why George Anthony would have an affair while his granddaughter was missing (which he denies)—because in this scenario he would be unable to control his sexual impulses in a variety of venues. Again, I am not saying that this is what happened. I am saying that it is plausible from the standpoint of a forensic psychiatrist. And I just don’t know how you send a woman to jail for life, or for decades, or to her death for killing her daughter, when there’s an alternate storyline that holds water just as well. Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com. While I don't think this is what actually happened I do find it hard to believe that Casey intentionally murdered her daughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Disclaimer: My opinion only. The tot mom did not report her child missing for 31 days! No normal mom parties down while her child is missing for 31 days. Except, those that murder one of their children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ^Very well said. The air samples identified 10,000 times what would be considered normal levels of chloroform. Plus she parked the car that had the smell of human decomposition in it next to a dumpster so to not stick out as clearly for smelling badly. Then texted her boyfriend to come pick her up from the Amscott (to cash a check) and that she thinks her father hit an animal with the car and the car smells bad. It still just boggles my mind. 10 hours of deliberation and apparently was mostly filled with arguments. All that evidence that was never called for to review. They must have had great memories. Juror #3 says,"where was the evidence, we wanted to convict her". It was sitting in the courtroom, dumb bitch! Ask to look at it again! Better watch out SoCal, she's probably heading your way after she gets out next week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missytootsweet Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 missytootsweet, on 07 July 2011 - 03:53 AM, said: Disclaimer: My opinion only. The tot mom did not report her child missing for 31 days! No normal mom parties down while her child is missing for 31 days. Except, those that murder one of their children. Right you are!! Why didn't the jury see this? It's called circumstantial evidence for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The tot mom did not report her child missing for 31 days! No normal mom parties down while her child is missing for 31 days. EXACTLY MISSY! I believe these 31 days will go down in history like the missing 18 1/2 minutes on Richard Nixon's Watergate tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 If she intentionally decided to abuse her daughter by administering chloroform, traces of which were found in her car... .. ...AND it appears that she was likely to have been the one who searched information about chloroform on the Internet (because it was of course obvious to everyone that the grandmother was lying on the stand about being the one who did dozens of chloroform searches--- in a mother's attempt to keep her daughter from the hangman's noose)... AND then the child died... ..the same child found in a garbage bag with duct tape on her face who was last seen with Casey... you know Casey, the same mother who lied about where her dead daughter was for over a month.. If that happened, and I believe it did.... she INTENTIONALLY murdered her daughter. The prosecution never provided cold, hard irrefutable evidence of cause of death. They were not able to effectively tie the alleged murder weapon (chloroform) to Casey. There was also no DNA evidence tying Casey to Caylee's death. The prosecution screwed up going for a Murder 1 conviction. A charge of manslaughter would have been more reasonable imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 There WAS a charge of manslaughter added to the indictment. I think I've mentioned that a couple times now. The jury not only acquitted her of the first degree murder charge, they also acquitted her of the manslaughter charge. Which means they think she not only didn't intentionally kill her daughter, they don't think she had even an unintentional role in the child's death. The problem wasn't the charges they had on the indictment, it was the fact they had little to no direct evidence to support any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The prosecution never provided cold, hard irrefutable evidence of cause of death. They were not able to effectively tie the alleged murder weapon (chloroform) to Casey. There was also no DNA evidence tying Casey to Caylee's death. The prosecution screwed up going for a Murder 1 conviction. A charge of manslaughter would have been more reasonable imo Wasn't count 2 aggravated manslaughter? I think we may have found the 13th juror!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 The third count was manslaughter. The first count was first-degree murder, the second count was aggravated child abuse, the third was manslaughter, the fourth through seventh were giving false information to the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I thought 2 and 3 were in reverse order. They BOTH were there, that is for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planted Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Worth reading...pay particular attention to the date this was originally written. Girl might be onto somethin. Wendy Murphy is the real deal, IMHO. Posted Jun 08, 2011 @ 10:00 AM Last update Jun 09, 2011 @ 09:22 AM Print Comment COMMENTARY BY WENDY MURPHY — There has never been a more reviled criminal defendant than Casey Anthony, the Florida mom on trial for murdering her nearly 3-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008. Casey behaved like a raving psychopath after her child went missing. She went out partying, didn’t shed a tear, and got a tattoo that read “beautiful life.” Her lawyer claims she acted weird because she was sexually abused as a child. Maybe she was, which would help explain evidence uncovered during the murder investigation that showed Casey may have been working as a prostitute at the time Caylee was killed. Studies show that well over 90 percent of prostituted women were sexually abused as children. But the idea that abuse made her get a tattoo rather than emote sadness about her child is absurd. So much so that when Casey’s attorney made the claim to jurors during his opening statement, prosecutors snickered. As easy as it is to hate Casey, there’s no real evidence she killed her child and our emphasis on her being a bad mother is distracting us from paying attention to the facts that matter. For example, last week’s testimony included statements from several witnesses that the car Casey was driving at the time Caylee went missing, a car that belonged to Casey’s mother, smelled strongly of a dead/decomposing body. The news coverage that followed had “experts” debating whether rotting food, can produce a similar odor. But the real question is – who had custody of the car at the time Caylee went missing? Casey was last seen in the car with Caylee on June 16, 2008. Around June 17-19, Casey was driving a borrowed Jeep and telling people that Caylee was with a nanny and her car was in the shop. Casey got her mother’s car back a few days later, but Caylee was nowhere in sight. On June 25 she told one of her friends that it “smelled like something died in my car.” On June 27 the car was abandoned, and on the 30th it was brought to a tow yard. The critical question raised by these facts is – who had the car and who was with Caylee when her dead body landed in the trunk sometime between June 17 and June 22. It’s possible Casey killed her child, but if she put her own child’s dead body in the trunk, why would she tell her friends that she smelled rotting flesh in her car? Casey knows more than she is saying – and she clearly helped cover up the truth – but the absence of evidence will never prove murder. If she had the guts to take the stand, we’d learn more – but that day will never come because she’d have to answer questions like this one: On May 30, you were sleeping with your boyfriend Ricardo Morales, at Ricardo’s apartment. Caylee was in the bed, too. In the middle of the night, you woke Caylee up and took her somewhere. Then you returned to Ricardo’s bed alone and went back to sleep. In the morning, Ricardo asked you where Caylee was, and you said you brought her home to your mother, an hour away. Your mother told cops that was a lie and that you never brought Caylee to her in the middle of the night. So do tell, Casey. Where did you take Caylee that night? So long as this part of the story remains a mystery, Casey Anthony will walk free. The prosecution’s opening statement suggested their best evidence against Casey is an expert who will testify that duct tape was placed on the child’s mouth before she died. They have no proof of who put it there or when. If that’s all there is, Casey will be acquitted because while it’s horrifying to bury your child, lie about it, and then go out partying, it isn’t proof of murder. Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast . READ MORE about this issue. What's your opinion? Click here to write a letter to the editor, leave a comment on the story below or call 781-340-3157 and leave a short message that we might post as an audio letter. Copyright 2011 The Patriot Ledger. Some rights reserved Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x1459481866/WENDY-MURPHY-Why-Casey-Anthony-will-be-acquitted#ixzz1RYKqSp00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Walter, Great points to add, thank you! Yep, what was this jury not capable of understanding. They just gave up on trying to come to a conclusion, they closed their minds off 1/2 through the trial and then allowed the defenses "big finish" to rule the day. 12 stupid people... Cheers, Brad Well Brad, as I'm sure you're aware of the stellar movie from the 1950's, "12 Angry Men", which features a great cast including Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb and Jack Klugman amongst them. Most of this takes place in the jury quarters and how they come to a decision on a murder case and how it was almost a shut case that things change from one jurors opinion. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ Well anyway, if this movie was remade with the Casey Anthony trial in mind, the film would most certainly be called, "12 Stupid People". Edited July 9, 2011 by SuperDave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The Casey Anthony verdict was the right verdict ultimately, even though human nature tells us it wasn't. The prosecution had no evidence that a murder occurred, they didn't even have a cause of death. Was her behavior suspicious? Absolutely. Was she a derelict mother? Absolutely. Did she cause her daughter's death or somehow contribute to it in some way? I firmly believe so, yes. However the justice system in this case worked exactly how it is designed to, and I wouldn't change that for any other system anywhere else. I'm sure you've heard the adage "It's better for 1,000 guilty men to go free than have 1 innocent man be chained." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouillon Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I'm sure you've heard the adage "It's better for 1,000 guilty men to go free than have 1 innocent man be chained." I wouldn't agree with that. Lock all 1,001 up, and let the one innocent person appeal later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 "Galactically stupid" to use a term from Tom Hanks in A Few Good Men. Was Tom Hanks in that movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzzoso Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The Casey Anthony verdict was the right verdict ultimately, even though human nature tells us it wasn't. The prosecution had no evidence that a murder occurred, they didn't even have a cause of death. Was her behavior suspicious? Absolutely. Was she a derelict mother? Absolutely. Did she cause her daughter's death or somehow contribute to it in some way? I firmly believe so, yes. However the justice system in this case worked exactly how it is designed to, and I wouldn't change that for any other system anywhere else. I'm sure you've heard the adage "It's better for 1,000 guilty men to go free than have 1 innocent man be chained." That may be an old adage, but I do not believe you when you say "I wouldn't change that for any other system anywhere else. I'm sure you've heard the adage "It's better for 1,000 guilty men to go free than have 1 innocent man be chained." Hypothetically, what if one (1) of those 1,000 guilty men happened to do horrible things to you or someone that you love? Would you still really think it's better for all of them to go free (especially that one man) than to have 1 innocent man be chained? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Apparently, yesterday, Cindy Anthony requested a video meeting with Casey in jail and Casey refused to speak with her. Also, I read where lame ass Jay Leno tried to make jokes about the trial during his show earlier this week that flopped horribly. Or just received the same reaction that I give his jokes - silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Was Tom Hanks in that movie? No, no he wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No, no he wasn't. Perhaps Brad got him confused with his son Colin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 That may be an old adage, but I do not believe you when you say "I wouldn't change that for any other system anywhere else. I'm sure you've heard the adage "It's better for 1,000 guilty men to go free than have 1 innocent man be chained." Hypothetically, what if one (1) of those 1,000 guilty men happened to do horrible things to you or someone that you love? Would you still really think it's better for all of them to go free (especially that one man) than to have 1 innocent man be chained? Goes both ways. What if, hypothetically, the 1 innocent person was you or someone you love? It's our system and I'll take it over any other system out there every time. Nothing's perfect, regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Goes both ways. What if, hypothetically, the 1 innocent person was you or someone you love? It's our system and I'll take it over any other system out there every time. Nothing's perfect, regardless. Very true and good point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) You're very right TypeO. Our system isn't perfect, and it has failed as many people as it has helped, I would bet. That doesn't mean the system needs to be removed and replaced with something else. Like I said, this was the wrong verdict for our emotions, and our gut instincts, and for those out there who are mothers, their own innate feelings as a parent. However the prosecution handed the jury basically nothing to deliberate with, and the system as designed says that if you don't have the evidence to convict, regardless of whether you feel the person is guilty or not, you acquit them. Which is what happened. Edited July 9, 2011 by Electrophile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouillon Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 ^ Do US jurors get paid, and if so, how much? The only way to fix the system is to remunerate them sufficiently to have pride in their role. The second necessity would be to introduce some form of intelligence testing at the jury selection stage. Didn't some of the OJ jurors admit afterwards that they hadn't even understood some of the evidence? If they couldn't understand it, how could they possibly evaluate it?? At least 50% of the population are idiots. Never forget that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.