Thursday, July 7, 2011

Why the Casey Anthony Trial Matters Here

Sometimes, juries are blind.

Posted by: Noël Jones

When I posted about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case last week, a reader wrote in to ask, "What does this have to do with Easton?" I answered that the case has dangerous implications for all women under our justice system, but especially immigrant women in service positions. If Strauss-Kahn walks without the D.A. even prosecuting him on behalf of the victim (who has substantial physical and forensic evidence on her side), it will send a message to all women--or at least women that are not powerful and rich--that if you are victimized by a wealthy and powerful man, you not only cannot fight him in court, but you, personally, will be raked over the coals and humiliated in public.

One could easily ask the same question of the Casey Anthony case, in which a young woman was accused of chloroforming her 2-year old
daughter, Caylee, and then suffocating her with duct tape over her mouth, driving around with her dead body in the back of her car while she partied and bar-hopped and got a tattoo that says "Bella Vita," which means "beautiful life," then finally buried her daughter in a Florida swamp near her parents house and pretended that a fictitious babysitter had abducted her, 31 days after her "disappearance." The reason that this case matters to us here, is because, much like the Strauss-Kahn case, the response of our judicial system holds serious implications for Americans everywhere, because it sets a dangerous precent and illustrates a disturbing trend in high-profile cases. That trend is that jurors seem to have replaced the mandate of "reasonable doubt" in finding the accused not guilty of murder, with simply any doubt at all. So it would seem that all any attorney has to do to get an acquittal is to obfuscate, distract and confuse a jury enough to make them doubt the evidence before them, giving them an excuse to abdicate their duty to exercise reason--or rational thinking. There is a big difference between reasonable doubt and just doubt. But if a case is high-profile enough--either because the accused is a) extremely wealthy and powerful like Strauss-Kahn, b) a celebrity, like O.J. Simpson, or c) supported pro bono due to media attention being given a particularly heinous crime, there is enough money flowing through the legal team to support extensive detective and forensic work, including forensic psychology, forensic technology and forensic accounting research that would normally not be available to the average citizen. And unfortunately, if you throw enough far-fetched scenarios at the jury over an extended period of time--like spaghetti against a refrigerator--eventually something will stick, and most jurors are more than happy to be relieved of the heavy responsibility of levying a guilty verdict with an excuse to declare "reasonable doubt."

There was doubt, certainly. The little girl's body had decomposed to such great degree that there was nothing left of her but bones, hair and duct tape, so a cause of death could not be definitively determined, even though the duct tape was still wrapped around her little skull. But when you have exceedingly high amounts of chloroform in the trunk of the mother's car, and police officers testify to the smell of a decomposed body in her empty trunk, and when the computer forensics shows research of chloroform and neck-breaking, and the defendant is proven to have lied to enforcement officers four different times after not reporting her daughter missing for 31 days, it's hard to understand how a jury can call it reasonably doubtful that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter, Caylee, so that she could be free to party.

Why should this matter to us, when it happened in Florida? Because unlike O.J. Simpson, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Casey Anthony was neither famous, nor rich and powerful before her defense team saw the opportunity for high-exposure to benefit their relatively unknown law firm. Thanks to The Jose Baez Law Firm, who went six attorney's deep on this case pro bono, Casey Anthony is now famous, and will, very soon, become rich. And so will The Jose Baez Law Firm, now that they have garnered a reputation on the national scene. Guess whose rates just went up? The defense team was seen popping champagne and partying in a restaurant with big glass windows in full view of the courthouse, as prosecutors were packing up their boxes to leave on the day of the verdict.

So what happens now if a child is murdered in our area? What message does this send? Unfortunately, the message is a horrific one: if you murder a child in a way that is awful enough to draw national media and viewer attention, you could very well not only get away with it, but become rich and famous, because some opportunist law firm out there will be more than happy to go all out to confuse a jury into letting the killer off, so that they can make a name for their firm and get rich. Justice be damned. Protecting children be damned. All Americans have very good reason to be deeply concerned about this verdict, and to re-examine the responsibility of each of us to exercise reason at all times, so as not to be deceived by those that would take advantage of the public, whether they be the media, politicians, greedy lawyers, or greed corporations.

Casey Anthony entered the court room today with her hair down, all smirks and smiles. She was sentenced this morning after being found innocent of murder in the first degree, as well as aggravated assault of a child, but guilty of four counts of lying to a police officer. The judge sentenced her to four consecutive sentences of the maximum penalty: one year each, totaling four years. But because Anthony has been in jail for three years already, and was a model prisoner, she gets a discount on her sentence for good behavior by law, and will be released on July 15th, at which point, she will start making tons of money, as it is now rumored on line that she and her lawyer have already been signed to the William  Morris Talent Agency. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we see this woman pose nude in the near future, exposing everything--but the truth.

The metaphor if "miscarriage of justice" should not be lost on us here. How many innocent children could be lost--while their murderers go unpunished--after a precedent like this?

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

This case is very much like the Scott Peterson case years ago. Lots of circumstantial evidence but still a "reasonable doubt". But fortunately he was rightfully convicted.
I thing in his case there was little sympathy, rightfully so, for a philandering husband with a pregnant wife.
I think if you listen to the jurors from the Casey Anthony case they were going by the exact letter of the law and wanted to convict her but felt there wasn't enough "hard" evidence.

Anonymous said...

If there ever was a "lynch mob" mentality, it was in this case. HLN sensationalized this case for three years. When it did not get what it wanted, a death sentence, they bought the rope and excited the mob. Even Bill O'Reilly said the jury has no right to hide. They should be brought here and stoned. I watched the trial. Simply, the state did not make its case. I would have voted for acquittal of those charges. They messed up the prosecution. They took their lessons from the OJ case: "Try on this glove"....even Marcia Clark became a pundit and condemned the jury. She should know. It's about winning the jury, NOT PUBLIC OPINION.

noel jones said...

it is about "reasonable" doubt vs. just plain doubt.

i don't understand how a case where a child can be found buried with duct tape around her skull identified as being from a home that the mother has access to, where the mother is proven to have waited 31 days to report her missing, is proven to have lied about her daughter being abducted by a fictitious babysitter, and can be caught with a car trunk that experienced officers identified as smelling of a decomposed body--a case with forensic evidence of high amounts of chloroform in the trunk of the mother's car, and computer records of her researching chloroform and "neck breaking", can be considered a case in which "simply, the state did not make it's case."

easy to say in hind-sight once the case is lost. i suspect there will be plenty of "i knew it all the time" posts on this one, when NO ONE knew what was going to happen with this jury until they came out with their verdict.

to call those in the public who are outraged a "lynch mob" seems a little harsh in light of how much evidence and expert testimony there was. contrary to popular belief, cases are won sometimes on circumstantial evidence and testimony when that circumstantial evidence is very strong.

the one flaw in my mind with the case though, was not charging her with a high count of neglect as well, as a back-up in case she was acquitted for murder. to not report her child missing for 31 days has got to fall under neglect at the very least...but i think the state felt that their case was so strong that they didn't need it. that might have gotten her a few more years at least...

Anonymous said...

Talent agency Paradigm signed Baez, not the William Morris Agency - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/casey-anthonys-lawyer-jose-baez-208926
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/paradigm-signs-casey-anthonys-attorney/

Anonymous said...

beyond a reasonable doubt

adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.

Re read: "the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure."

Tell me what is the legal interpretation of "reasonable doubt"

As far as the lynch mob, listen to HLN and tell me if they ever believed in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". They manufactured degrading "nick names" and sensationalized this case for three years. Now, they tell us that the jurors do not understand 'reasonable doubt" and they cannot even explain the concept.

noel jones said...

Anon 7:46--thanks for the link

I expected her to get signed somewhere, but I have never heard of a LAWYER getting signed to a talent agency after a case like this. A speaker's agency, yes, but a TALENT agency? What's he going to do now--try to get a movie role?

A Critical Thinker said...

Jose Baez in his brilliant summation really showed huge reasonable doubt not just doubt - and also conveyed that the prosecutors lost their integrety in their search for evidence - actually their actions border on fraud. Not saying she is innocent but would ask if it were you on trial would you not want the jury to see through the overzealous efforts of the prosecuter and the media to make you look guilty? You mention tape around Caylee's skull when the body was found - there is reasonable doubt about whether the remains were disturbed - first by animals (clawing and dragging a duct tape wrapped bag) but also by the meter reader whose first description of the scene and the bag, which he picked up and the skull fell out of, is not what the scene was when the police finally came to it. You mention cloroform and internet searches. It came out on the stand that the computer report presented was not the original report submitted by the police - which showed ONE search for cloroform placed around the time in March when Casey's then boyfriend posted "Woo Her with Cloroform" on his face book page. The state ommitted calling all of its own witnesses - some who researched the cloroform in the car said there was not a high amount and what was there could be from gasoline and cleaning products both were used on the car. Same is true of the insect evidence, Baez, not the state, called the state's witnesses to show there was genuine disagreement on this. Also he pointed out that in the days after the 16th several people rode in Casey's car and didnt smell anything. The odor was reported on three weeks later. That does not fit the prosecution's scenario and it doesn't make sense. Distorting the evidence and playing it out in the media is also a wrong and just because Casey Anthony is a "slut and a liar" as Baez put it doesn't mean a juror gets to say she dies. That would be murder too. Maybe she did it and justice was not served in the short picture but in the long picture what if it was you - do you think the media and the cops cant make you look bad enough to have people believe it. They can. They do. In the big picture justice was served for the good of the order and for all of us. Now we just have to put up with Casey Anthony and the only person who really benefited from the death of Caylee - Nancy Grace.

Anonymous said...

Guilty of lying. Guilty of a cover up. But was it a murder or an accident? Who can say?

noel jones said...

I wonder what charge exists on the books for the crime of covering up the disappearance of a child and/or, burying a child without reporting a death? Is it possible that in our society these are not crimes?

Untouched Takeaway said...

Critical Thinker:

Great post. The last part of your last sentence is so true.

True justice in this case would be watching Nancy Grace's head implode on national television. She's a disgrace.

noel jones said...

And no one is arguing that Baez is not a skilled attorney--other attorneys on cable shows were criticizing him a lot before the verdict--but for anyone to say that now, would just be stupid. He won an extremely difficult case. He won, so he does not suck as an attorney, obviously.

However, we really need to think about our justice system and the media, and how disturbing incentives exist in precedents like this to take on cases of the most heinous offenders pro-bono, to profit financially as a firm (or in Baez's case, perhaps as a future movie star?) later.

One thing that I think points to the lack of "reasonable doubt"--Will the state of florida keep trying to find the killer, now that Anthony has been acquitted? I think not, and why? Because no one truly has reasonable doubt that she did it, and they can't ever try her again for the crime, even if they do come upon new evidence or testimony. If anyone seriously believed that she didn't do, they would still be hunting for the "real" killer.

A Critical Thinker said...

Lying to prevent investigators from uncovering a crime could be considered evidence of guilt. But in Casey Anthony's case - this girl was lying for at least two years before anything happened to Caylee. She was lying to all friends and family about having a job, having a nannie - she had names and descriptions on all of them. Cindy and Casey sat in a parking lot once for at least 30 minutes waiting for one of her "friends to show up." Her brother said that since she was a child she lied and she would never back down. So "rational thinking" could not conclude without a very reasonable doubt that her motive for lying to the police on that day was evidence that she committed a murder.

She was the last known person with Caylee and you could conclude from the lies that she didnt want to help anyone find Caylee. That would be aggravated child abuse if Caylee were alive. But supposedly she wasn't at this time alive. It is entirely plausible that this reality challenged person would try to hide an accident from her family with whom she was feuding. After the police got involved and the media all this "evidence" started to come out. During the trial reasonable doubt was presented regarding this evidence - did you watch that testimony? The states own expert witnesses cast reasonable doubt regarding both the computer search and the presence of cloroform, and the smell of the car and when this smell developed. Somehow this testimony didnt make headlines. Why? Here you have the real issue with rational thinking. This media driven money hungry culture does not have the patience, motive or capacity to think rationally. But this is EXACTLY what the jury did. Reasonable doubt was also presented regarding the positioning of the duct tape. The body was moved - by animals, by water and by a meter reader.

Jose Baez didnt distract. Despite the predudice of the media and inclination of the judge to favor the prosecutors (familiars to him whereas Baez was an outsider) Jose Baez was dignified at all times. He stood at attention every time the jury came in - he made eye contact with every one of them every time. Meanwhile the prosecution stood with their arms folded and rudely whispered among themselves. They giggled and made faces and jokes during testimony - did you hear the "pigs in a blanket" one - did you watch? Jose Baez made sure he had an educated jury - ones that were exactly capable of what you say was missing - rational thinking. And as I said in my previous post - his summation was brilliant and based on what you wrote I dont believe you have watched - who has the time to watch - right? Only the jury had the time to watch and listen to every word and to think about nothing else.

Anonymous said...

Who got paid:
Cops got paid
Prosecutors got paid
Judge got paid
Expert witnesses got paid
Reporters got paid

Who didn't get paid:
the Jury
Jose Baez

camille said...

To Critical Thinker- You must not be well acquainted with the facts... Allow me to introduce you to just a few of them that blow your whole self proclaimed rational thinking out of the water- I would go on and take you down point by point but I really haven't the time and can see that you seem to be too set in your ways to be enlightened anyway.There is no doubt whatsoever about if the meter reader- Roy Kronk_ ever moved the bones of little Caylee. He did not move them. There was ZERO proof that he ever moved them. The defense never even attempted to prove that the bones were ever moved. Not once- not at all. They simply threw the notion out there that perhaps Roy Kronk had moved the bones. Perhaps he had even kept them for 4 months. Wild speculations- sensational notions, that after uttered, they never revisited in the slightest- because they could not prove there was any reason to rationally think such a thing had ever occurred. They just let those awful ideas sit in the jurors heads and in the minds of the public to fester and breed some sort of curious doubt. Now, aside from wanting to throw others under the bus for their client- we must ask ourselves, why did the defense do this? Because they wanted to allow the juror to think that perhaps little Caylee had been alive during the incarceration of Casey Anthony so that they could try to clear her of any involvement that way. But with no proof. Speculation- like this- is far more dangerous than circumstantial evidence- circumstantial evidence is still evidence remember. The remains were actually in the same position that Roy Kronk described. Anything contrary is a lie/distortion by the defense- check the records. It is not true. But if one listens to all of the lies and TOTALLY UNPROVEN THEORIES by the defense- it is easy to see how the jury came to this sad conclusion. More to come...

camille said...

The skull was found with 3 pieces of duct tape still stuck to it- one so far around the skull that it was tangled in the remains of her hair and nearly went all of the way around her head. The duct tape was there- as described by the police and prosecution- no doubt. Not even if Jose wants you to believe otherwise. A fact is a fact. Jose's masterful opening statement and closing statements do not even match up in so many ways- he said in opening that he would PROVE so many things- that Casey was molested by her dad and brother- that was never proved at all. That he would PROVE that Roy Kronk moved the body, that other people were responsible for Caylee's death (1st Jesse Grund- then the shadow over Roy Kronk, then Casey's dad...), that there was no means or motive for Casey to commit murder, then later that Casey was not fit to stand trial... All of these things not only went UNPROVEN, but most were proven to the contrary!!! With actual forensic evidence- not only circumstantial evidence. Ex.: cell phone records show Casey Anthony returned to her home the morning that they believe Caylee was murdered after her dad left the house and the house was empty. The house remained empty while cell phone records later showed Casey in the area of the "grave" of her daughter. No one else had access to Caylee or Casey's car during that time period. No one but Casey. It was testified to repeatedly. And btw- no juror was deciding whether or not Casey would be put to death! The Judge decides at sentencing- after taking a multitude of factors into consideration!!! The juror was not deciding whether or not she would live or die! They were to decide if she was guilty and if so to what charges. One charge carried with it the POSSIBILITY of a death sentence. Finding her guilty would not have meant an automatic death sentence. More to come...

camille said...

They are proposing legislation that would make it a crime if some one fails to report the "disappearance" of a child- because of this. And as per evidence of guilt- what about when the police were searching the wooded swamp where the remains were and put Casey (healthy and happy) into a room to be recorded while she watched TV showing that they were at the scene of the crime and had found remains- though they never mentioned that it could be Caylee, nor did they even know for a number of days after that, and Casey freaked out and was hyperventilating and feeling nauseated and hysterical- why? Because of knowing she was guilty. Recognizing the grave site of her daughter. Knowing that evidence was there that would show that she MURDERED her daughter. (Lucky for her she had stalled long enough that much evidence had deteriorated and was no longer useful.) There are no lies to explain away that admission of guilt. NONE. You talk about how she was a pathologial liar for years and say it could show that she lied for other reasons than to save her own butt from a murder charge- no, sorry, not rational. Because she wasn't just a pathological liar, she is a sociopath and they lie and switch their lies around and adjust to a changing situation to remain in control of their image and save themselves. They do not care enough about others- only themselves- and that can easily lead to murder- it is a rational progression of an irrational mind. And please, don't embarrass us all by saying that she is not a sociopath- enough experts have weighed in and she is. Jose was excellent at his job- but aided a miscarriage of justice in the process, or perhaps caused it altogether. He was on good behavior largely- the prosecution was not always- but at the end, he was not so well behaved either. You had to have seen when he came barreling out of the court room and used his finger pistols to gun down the media in a rapid fire of "ha ha, I win you loose!", and when his co-counsel flipped a double bird at protesters (a middle finger up and using his arm in the crook of the upraised arm to further signal his intent). No one was a saint here- there were many sins. The worst being that Jose misconstrued the idea/meaning of reasonable doubt enough that the jurors delivered this horrendous verdict.

camille said...

(Side note: And who has time to watch and see it all- besides the jury you ask? Well, I have a family member that did watch every bit of every day of trial and was not watching the media blitz. Her conclusion- GUILTY on all counts.) It was kind of funny, and thanks for the laugh, when you said that after the police got involved, and the media that all of this "evidence" started coming out... Yes, it is true, the police were investigating after a grand jury indicted her- and they actually ended up finding forensic evidence!!! Whoa- novel idea! The police found evidence! Yes, over 300 pieces of hard forensic evidence. Not to mention the circumstantial as well. Sigh. So yes, evidence came out of a police investigation. And yes, the media latched on to the sensational aspect of the story- a 2 pronged story, a mother murdering her daughter, and a mother being such a lying sociopath that she hid it with so many lies for so long. Sigh. I guess we can really blame the media and call them out now- they saw a crazy story and a crazy mother and ran with it. Yes, the media can be single minded, but they had nothing to do with the evidence. And apparently, the evidence had little to do with the verdict as well. Evidenced by the interviews with jurors and alternates- saying things like, the prosecution never proved that she had a chance to murder her daughter- but they had, because of the return to the home etc that I mentioned above. I just wish that since they seemed to believe that they had Casey's life in their hands (which they did not) and they wanted to be just, that they had realized that they also were responsible for justice in Caylee's murder. One life was already lost- I wish that they had at least asked to read back the testimony from the trial. In honor of Caylee. So that they could have caught all of the evidence and held it in their heads and long enough to compare and contrast with the hell-fire closing statement that Jose gave (devoid of proof and full of wild assertions).
Sigh. Totally out of time. I don't mean to only call you out Critical Thinker, but you simply were not using facts for your line of rational thinking and it rendered your thinking irrational and your conclusions as well. I can tell you are trying, and had you used facts I think you could have made sense.

Anonymous said...

The only reason Nancy Grace or any of these other morons on TV can be a disgrace is if people watch them.
Without viewers, they would fade away into nothingness, where they belong.
Unfortunately they appeal to the vast majority of people on the planet, idiots.

camille said...

To Anon 2:30pm- Who got paid?!? Really?!? Who got paid!??? Well Jose Baez sure as heck isn't doing his interviews for free! He will certainly get paid for all of his books and other deals his agency signs for him! He wasted NO time at all in getting that set up, did he? Who gets paid!? Well Casey will now for all of the same... Who did NOT get paid? Zeneda Gonzalez did not get paid for the attack on her and intrusion into her life. Equisearch in TX did not get paid back for all of the money they spent chasing down Casey's lies. The police and state of FL will hopefully get paid BACK for all of the funds expended during the search for Caylee as well. Who did not get paid? Well, this case was not driven by the expectation for financial gain- except perhaps on the part of the defense as evidenced by their speedy retainer of a talent agency- but was driven by the seeking of truth and justice- at least for the prosecution. The prosecution gets paid a low wage compared to other attorneys FYI and would have been paid for their work regardless of what case it was. Jose would not have been able to hire his fancy talent firm had it not been for this case. Nor would he have been able to do so if the media had not focused on it so much- so he needs to stop crying about the media. It is crocodile tears. Perhaps his time with Casey has altered him? He did receive a loving caress on his right cheek from her during the trial a time or two... Who got paid? indeed.

Anonymous said...

you still have not demonstrated how the child was killed and, therefore, reasonable doubt. Exactly how do you murder with tape? How does chloroform relate to the murder? These were the biggest holes and the woman walked free outside of her lies. And on the lie subject. Had Florida charged her correctly she would be doing twenty years for the lies, not four.

critical thinking ongoing said...

1.Three pieces of duct tape were found but three pieces of duct tape where not found on the skull. That is a fact.

2. The Anthonys buried their pets in trash bags wrapped with duct tape. Thrown into a woods or buried (we don't known) such a package was discovered by animals (a fact) who pulling at bones of a partially decomposed body could plausibly have caused entanglement of tape and remains. The picture of the skull with duct tape presented to the public and even at the trial was computer generated and not an accurate representation of what was found. If Casey had been found guilty the defense probably could have gotten reversal based on this piece of manipulated evidence alone. The court only found out after it was presented that it had not been properly measured and documented. Also, one would expect that the further decomposition and the movement of flood water (fact) would have moved the remains in a way that may not indicate how they were originally placed. Kronk reported at one point that he picked up the bag and the skull fell out. He also said there was a heavy tree over the remains. When the police came months later - no tree over the remains. Plus the three pieces of tape - at least one of them was found a considerable distance away. Jose Baez called Kronk to the stand and he called Kronk's son to the stand so Camille how can you say the Defense never visited it even slightly? It was the prosecution that never went there --never called this person who stood to lose was it a $250,000 reward for not being the first to find Caylee. Hey, there's another one that got paid - Kronk! Also the prosecutors actually threatened with prosecution the Equisearcher who said there was no body in that area when he searched it with a canine. The jury wasnt allowed to hear that but your aunt watching on TV must have heard that. That the prosecuters threatened him if he continued to say that - wow wow wow as Jeffrey Ashton would say. I personally think the remains were there but the prosecuters zeal gives me pause with respect to what other evidence they tried to suppress.

2. Evidence that Casey moved and/ or buried the body is not evidence of whether the child was murdered or had an accident. This is the reasonable doubt that the jurors had being given a defendant who is not a normal person and was not a normal person her whole life. A normal person being someone who understands that in the situation of an accident they may not be guilty and they can face the truth and their family and friends.

3. Why shouldn't Jose Baez recoup his losses on this case? He took a big risk. Nobody would be talking to him if he lost.

Anonymous said...

The lazy thinking in this debate is that of course its so obvious she did something. Its so obvious the sun moves around the earth and the earth is flat cause thats how it is when I walk on it. Sometimes the truth doesn't have anything to do with common sense.

The jurors are now having their lives threatened.

camille said...

Anon- I did not know that about the FL charge being incorrect. That is frustrating. Now, it is not reasonable doubt just because you cannot say exactly how a murder occurred. If that were true, then every crime would need an eyewitness (and one that is impeccable at that)- there was a preponderance of evidence forensic and circumstantial that showed how Caylee was murdered- it was officially declared a murder by the coroner. And if you cannot figure it out, I hate to give you any ideas, but you can easily murder with duct tape and chloroform- cover airways with duct tape after sedating with chloroform. Oh- but make sure you add that last piece almost all the way around the head tangled in the hair so that if the child rouses from the sedation they cannot get the tape off. Then, you (if you are Casey Anthony) add a heart shaped sticker... Oh wait, actually I guess if you cannot say exactly how a murder occurred then it would be reasonable to forgo common sense and the evidence (both kinds) and add into the mix that it was a great intergalactic conspiracy! Aliens did it! You cannot disprove it so I guess it causes reasonable doubt, right? No. Not at all.

camille said...

Oh "Critical Thinker"- you make me sad. So sad. But thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify myself because I did not explain my argument clearly in my haste- my bad... #1 the 3 pieces of duct tape were not found on the skull- you are right! How could they have been- they had been stuck to little Caylee's mouth, nose and hair causing her murder and that flesh had sadly already decomposed and was gone so the duct tape was stuck to nothing at all. Funny thing about tape though, it sticks to things and things stick to it. Like evidence that shows it had to have been placed as I described- like DNA, saliva, hair... And further, to your earlier point, when Roy Kronk found the remains in the bag, the skull rolled out. So one piece of tape rolled a bit away from the scene- reasonable to me. More reasonable than the intergalactic conspiracy of aliens murdering her...And no, the other pieces would not still be in place then because the skull fell and since the tape was no longer attached to anything, how could they remain in place? #2 My family buried pets in the same way- are we suspects? Oh no! Did I just blow the case for the prosecution by introducing reasonable doubt now!??? No. I did not. Her parents may have buried pets that way, but they had no access to Caylee, the clothes she was wearing, the car, their phone records do not link them to the scene of the burial either. Oh wait- vets all over the states give deceased animals to their owners in the same fashion! Oh no- now I have really gone and done it! I ruined the case for the prosecution this time!!! Shucks.

camille said...

"Critical Thinker"- Further to #2 The skull and tape was still in the bag, undisturbed by animals. Fact. And the defense would have never been able to overturn a conviction based on a computer altered photo- you are allowed to use fully computer generated videos etc even. Please. The area was flooded with water, but it was not rushing flood waters, it was a swamp with rising and falling waters. So there would have been very little movement of the remains, the decomposition was the real issue. Poor maligned Kronk, he found the remains and was not involved in the murder of Caylee at all (nothing proven whatsoever but plenty of proof to the contrary) and now you want to malign him some more because he was qualified to accept a reward for finding her remians? So any good citizen who reports on some crime that leads to a reward is now so suspect that you are saying it is a negative on him for being eligible for a reward? Wow, I guess that all of those cases that were solved due to tips etc from people who got rewards should all be thrown out. It is lucky that something- anything motivated him to be there so he could find the remains. Was he even out there directly searching for Caylee? Oh wait, no, he wasn't. I guess that little important fact just did not fit your scheme. And poor guy- bet his head was spinning when he found the remains of a child in a bag in the swamp... Hard to hold him to the location of a heavy tree under such circumstance. But I guess you know it all and would have been so calm and cool and collected that you would not have misjudged something like that? Kind of like Casey. Except that she freaked out hard when she saw the footage of the crime scene- you never had a response for that. I guess because there is not one. Understandable.

noel jones said...

Anon 2:30, I cannot even believe you went there--Jose Baez not getting paid? Are you really pretending not to understand what his signing with a talent agency is going to mean for him in terms of a financial windfall?

Don't be surprised if he makes his first million in a porn with Casey.

I beg all Anons to please take a moniker if you want to remain anonymous, so that readers can follow this conversation and know which voices are popping in and out and back--make up a name for yourself!

camille said...

"Critical Thinker"- #2 further, what the defense never revisited about Kronk was their wild claims. Even after he had been on the stand and others had testified to the matter as well, and they proved that the defense was wrong in saying in opening that they could prove he did something with the bones- even after it was disproven, they did not admit it. No, they steamrolled ahead and kept bringing it up as if it could possibly be a fact- though it had been shown it could NOT be! What they did not do is revisit the issue and say that it was not reasonable to doubt the facts that went contrary to their crazy claims. Eqisearch never searched the area where Caylee was found- not with a dog, not without a dog. No one ever did. The area was not searched. FACT. Equisearch conducted a number of other searches though. But never in the area of Caylee's grave. You don't have a leg to stand on there sorry.
As to your second #2 (I think you meant 3?) If the jurors gave Casey special credit because she is a liar and always has been and therefore cannot understand she can protect herself if it was an accident- then the jurors are crazy and in breach of their duties, severely. Casey was deemed fit to stand trial and take responsibility for her actions- she was not unable/unfit to understand how to function as a proper human being would. Please. It was documented and proven she was fit, so if they let her off because they (in there apparently infinite wisdom) thought they new best that she was not really fit, then I fear even more for our country and system. Sociopaths are fit to stand trial. Liars are. Murdering sociopathic liars are fit. FACT. Experts testified that in every accidental death of a child some one at some point tries some how to save the child because no one wants to believe a child is dead. 100% of the time. And in Casey's defense's wild claim that it was an accident and her parents both knew about it and she knew about it- but she said no one ever made any attempt to save Caylee- no 911 call (obviously- she knew that would be proven false). No CPR (she did not think of that because she would not have bothered to do it). No attempts to revive her (again- same as above). As to your #4 (really #4) Why shouldn't Jose recoup fees? I think he should. I think Casey should pay him- with her royalties and licensing fees etc. People would have wanted to talk to him if he had lost- he would be very popular if he lost. Everyone wants to hear from the prosecution too- and they lost. Marcia Clark lost and she is still churning out new books about the trial and making money. Fact. So don't tell me no one would have wanted to talk to Jose. Please. He would have made money either way- he just is doing it in a gross and eager way. So sad. No justice for Caylee.

noel jones said...

Camille--thanks for the extra info--that's more than I knew, and even with the parts of the trial I saw, I heard plenty not to have a reasonable doubt.

As for the skull, I could have sworn that in the prosecutor's closing arguments, he showed a police photo of Caylee's skull as it was found, and pointed out the ring of hair around the base of the skull, proving that it was still where it would have naturally falled and that the skull hadn't been moved. He talked about Roy Kronk being a storyteller and spinning a yarn that just wasn't true, because the photo proved that.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

And as for Jose Baez throwing all kinds of expert testimony to support the doubt he created, the prosecutor also painstakingly compared for the jury the experience of their expert witnesses who had been in the business for decades against Baez's "expert" witnesses, one who was barely out of school.

Anonymous said...

camille, let's not be use intergalactic conspiracies. Reasonable doubt does not mean preponderance of the evidence which is used in civil trials. This is a criminal trial and believe me despite all the writings in the world no one has ever defined including our supreme court what reasonable doubt is.

It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of allthe evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances,

You cannot speculate on how someone was murdered. It has to be shown to you with certainty. There was nothing in the case that suggests that either Chloroform or duct tape was used. They were placed on the table to charge our imaginations. Chloroform by itself could have caused death. Duct Tape by itself could have caused death. The weakness in the state's case was in these two points. They needed a better explanation. The case lacked that piece of information.

Anonymous said...

The supreme court case which describes the beyond reasonable doubt doctrine is Victor v Nebraska.

There is another disturbing issue with this over televised case. On every day of this trial the reporting cable network had enlisted a list of experts to comment on what was going on in the case. Those experts commented on every piece of scientific evidence as well as body language and the law. That's great and the opinions were very biased. Problem is the jury never received this additional information. They were limited to what was shown them in the trial. We need to go back to the trial videotape to understand what was really going on. TV does a great disservice. Now, jurors who should be revered are threatened with harm because of their findings. 12 people came to the exact same conclusion. We need to thank them for their service and stop trying to lynch them.

noel jones said...

if the skull had duct tape on it when found, there's your murder weapon, and in answer to the other anon's question earlier--by suffocation.

Anonymous said...

why is that the murder weapon. The chloroform would have easily done the job by itself.

Anonymous said...

We never saw a picture of Caylee's skull with duct tape attached to it. The jury saw those pictures of the skull and duct tape but we did not. So we really don't know how it was attached or how it became attached. During the trial there was a computer generated interpretation of Caylees face with duct tape attached and the computer picture showing her face decomposing into into a skull and it showed what that would look like with duct tape attached. This fiction was introduced into court as evidence and would probably have been a cause for a reversal had the jury not acquitted. One could equally as well have introduced a computer generated animation of an animal pulling the skull out of the bag causing the duct tape at the top of bag to appear to be wrapped around the skull. (The pieces of duct tape that were actually found further away prove that the duck tape indeed moved from its original positioning.)

There is no evidence that Casey Anthony murdered her child or that anyone did. Family dysfunction can and frequently does lead to accidents and even to cover ups due to lack honesty and reality based coping skills. There is circumstantial evidence for this too: the ladder left at the pool on the 17th, the fighting among the adults, the lack of child proof locks on the patio doors, Caylees ability to open them and the flurry of phone calls Casey made where no one answered.

The video of the trial is still accessible at WFTV Orlando.http://www.wftv.com/video/27831451/index.htmlhttp://www.wftv.com/video/27831451/index.html

Anonymous said...

Sorry, above was from Critical Thinker. The flurry of calls were made by Casey on the day and around the time that the state says Caylee died.

Anonymous said...

Noel - your having no reasonable doubt after watching only some of the trial does not vouch for your opinion. The jury saw all of the trial.

Also, because someone is a few years out of school their expert opinion is to be viewed negatively compared to those who have been out of school longer???? Then by that standard why did the state humiliate that old guy, the one who did JFK's autopsy? He was out of school longer than anybody x 10.

noel jones said...

i still don't have an answer on the photo presented during the prosecution's closing arguments. perhaps if I find time i will go to Anon's link for the case and fast forward to the end to watch closing arguments again, but that's what i remember hearing when i watched it.

closing arguments are a summation of best evidence presented, so yes, one can understand the case listening to the closing arguments, as the attorneys are throwing up the BEST of everything they've got to convince a jury. if there was presented a photo of Caylee's skull when found, and that skull had tape on it, then the tape was applied to her head and not outside of a bag. if her hair was found to have fallen in a perfect ring around the skull, then the skull was never moved. the tape is the murder weapon because there is no reasonable motive to apply tape to a head if someone is already dead from chloroform.

even if the child was chloroformed and the tape was applied only to her mouth in case she woke up and made noise, and she died of a heart attack from panic, the tape is still the murder weapon, although i suppose someone sick could argue that that would be manslaughter.

the fact that this woman is free to walk and get rich, without even being convicted of child abuse, neglect, or manslaughter--never mind murder 1--is incredible--despicable--unreasonable--to me. everyone can get excited about parsing out the technicalities and chalking it up to the rules of our justice system, but that involves abdicating ourselves of the responsibility we each have in helping to shape our justice system. when our justice system does not work, it's up to us to pressure our officials to make sure that laws are changed to cover every possible scenario so that this can't happen again. i'm glad, at least to hear that there is a new law being proposed about making it a crime to not report a missing child.

as for nancy grace, i used to dislike her. i hated her hair and didn't care for her accent and most of all was averse to her morbid fascination with such heinous cases as well as that of her fans. but i have come to realize from this case that she is one of the most powerful advocates out there in terms of raising public awareness enough to pressure officials to change laws to protect children and see that justice is done more often in situations like Caylee's. so i appreciate her for that, and i like the fact that she is tenacious, experienced as an attorney, and intimidated by no one. on the down side, she is a big part of what makes someone like Jose Baez signable to a talent agency.

furthermore, i think that a good deal of the hatred levied at nancy grace is simply a misogynous reaction to a strong woman. i was no fan of hillary clinton when she was running for office, but spent a good deal of that presidential race defending her because the comments and tone of vitriol that i heard constantly levied at her disturbed me-- so much of it had nothing to do with her position on the issues at all, and when i asked people why they hated her so much, most times they couldn't articulate a reason at all, much less a reason that had to do with the issues. i think nancy grace catches similar flack for kicking ass.

noel jones said...

New "Caylee's Law" being proposed in 16 states--including New Jersey--to make it illegal not to report a missing child within 24 hours...

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2011/07/nj_lawmakers_push_caylees_law.html

noel jones said...

Caylee's Law also would make it illegal to disturb and/or not report a dead body.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html

July 19th article from NYT.

The state lied. What a double standard. And folks are still repeating the chloroform and neck breaking stuff online. The state made it up and knew they were making it up. Will they ever get arrested for this lie and this fraud and this attempted murder? Will this ever even be a news story? I say if they lied about this then how can you trust any of the other evidence. This is whats wrong with justice in this country. Casey Anthony has nothing to do with it.