Captain Rantypants Featured Image

Why the Casey Anthony verdict makes sense. And why you’re stupid.

The overwhelming waves of ignorant uproar drowned out Twitter and Facebook today at 2:15 EST after the verdict was read for the Casey Anthony trial.

I read posts by people that blamed the jury for being stupid, blamed Florida for screwing everything up and blamed our justice system.  I understand that this is an emotional issue, and that the death of a child makes it so that many people are unable to respond in any way other than irrationally and emotionally, but if you were one of those people, you are wrong.

The only thing that Casey Anthony is guilty of, beyond a reasonable doubt, is falsifying evidence (providing false information to law enforcement officers).  Here are a few of the ignorant responses I saw yesterday (and understand that by ignorant, I’m saying that it’s an uneducated opinion not based in anything but emotions.  It doesn’t mean that you, as a whole, are ignorant.)

1.  At the very least, she’s guilty of child endangerment for telling people that someone kidnapped her daughter for a full month.

Caylee was not alive during that month.  You can’t be found guilty for an impossible crime, eg, you can’t endanger a child who isn’t around to be endangered.  If there was such thing as “attempted child endangerment”, that might have been possible, but that wasn’t a charge.

2.  The jury should have found her guilty of manslaughter or second degree murder if there wasn’t enough evidence for first degree murder.

That’s not the jury’s decision.  The prosecutor arguably made an error by pushing for first-degree murder and the death penalty when the evidence was barely circumstantial.  If they had charged her with manslaughter, this might have been a very different case.

3.  I just know she’s guilty – everybody can tell.

No you can’t, and you’re a fucking idiot.  You don’t know anything.  You know how the media has portrayed it and you know that she’s got poor credibility when it comes to honesty.  That does not make someone a murderer.

4.  Well, I didn’t kill Caylee Anthony, so who did?

Did it ever occur to you that this could have been an accident?  Let me paint a scenario: Caylee sneaks outside and falls in the pool.  Before Casey can get to her, she drowns. Panicking, Casey pulls her out of the pool, wraps her in plastic, and duct tapes it, which causes the tape to get stuck to her head, and puts her in her trunk.  She’s too scared to tell her parents, so she concocts a story about the nanny stealing her.  She continues to pretend like everything is okay to avoid suspicion, but the lies get bigger and bigger until she gets everything twisted around, and has to include her parents in the plan.  In order to help spread the lie, they Google terms like “chloroform” to come up with a plausible story for what happened to Caylee.

Did that happen?  I don’t know. And neither do you.  However, given the circumstantial evidence, including the fact that they can’t even determine a cause of death, it’s a reasonable alternative for this entire situation.  And that is what’s called reasonable doubt. Knowing that this could be a simple case of accidental death that was covered up by an immature, obnoxious woman who lies easily, would you be so quick to send her to her death?

We are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This means that regardless of what occurs in the court of public opinion, the law protects us all.  That reasonable doubt prevents any of us from being found guilty because you made a mistake or he is a bad person or she is unlikable.  It is not a perfect system, of course – there is no such thing.  But it’s an excellent system that worked, in the case of Casey Anthony, the way that it was supposed to.

Stop reacting emotionally.  I don’t care what your gut or your heart tell you.  I don’t care what you “just know”.  The verdict was appropriate given the evidence, the charges that were brought, and the situation, and to say anything otherwise is display your ignorance broadly.

Share the love:
Follow by Email

205 Replies to “Why the Casey Anthony verdict makes sense. And why you’re stupid.”

  1. Libby

    I was really going with you, and agreeing on the facts about circumstantial evidence… and then I saw the links at the bottom of your post.

    Do you really care? Or is this all just a blog post to gain attention by saying things you know people will find offensive?

  2. Angie [A Whole Lot of Nothing]

    This: “The prosecutor arguably made an error by pushing for first-degree murder and the death penalty when the evidence was barely circumstantial. If they had charged her with manslaughter, this might have been a very different case.”

    I’m not even a lawyerly person, and I know that.

    I also “know” that that bitch is crazy.

  3. B.E. Earl

    I understand the burden of reasonable doubt. And I watched a lot of the trial because I work from home and Gia is out of work and she lives for shit like this. The prosecution just didn’t make the case.

    That being said, I would have found her guilty. She didn’t take the stand to defend herself when her life was on the line. I believe an innocent person would have. For me, that makes her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    But I totally understand the verdict the jury did turn in.

    • Avitable

      @B.E. Earl, actually, even someone who was innocent would not necessarily take the stand. By taking the stand, the prosecutor would have been able to introduce more evidence impinging her character and destroying her credibility any further. Innocent or not, no intelligent attorney would have put her on the stand.

      • B.E. Earl

        @Avitable, That where it all went wrong for Jack in A Few Good Men, eh? Yeah, I get it. I still think it’s something I would insist on if I were innocent, but then again I don’t plan on being in that situation.

  4. Loukia

    I disagree with you, even though I have no law degree, and you can probably out-legal talk me any day of the week. I can only speak as a mother, a mother who loves her children. And you know what a mother who loves her child does, if she finds her child floating in a pool, not breathing? She scream, and calls 911. Anything other than this is crazy. The little girl didn’t drown. Her stupid mom killed her, and there is proof everywhere. Her lies alone! Telling everyone the nanny was with her daughter, saying the nanny kidnapped her daughter? There was no nanny. Searching for ‘How to break a neck” on her computer? Hmm, yeah, something normal people search for everyday! The duct tape on her MOUTH? 3 pieces of duct tape, with a heart sticker on top, aww. And her winnie the pooh blanket. Accident or not, disposing of your child’s body in some swamp and not giving her a proper burial is sick. And she’s fucking guilty as sin, and now that the stupid jury found her innocent she will hopefully feel some sort of guilt and will hopefully forever be haunted by her daughter’s image, of her last moments. I can’t handle how she is a free woman, and yet I have to to fight a speeding ticket and will probably pay a heftier crime than she. Screw that. The proof is everywhere. What mom goes out partying like a (I’m sorry to say it but I’m going to) slut days after her child dies? And her face, it looks evil. I agree with your point number 2, she should have gotten at the very least manslaughter. GRRRR! It is not my heart or gut that is telling me she is guilty, it is, in my opinion, the hard cold facts that I read and know to be true! Damn if I was on that jury… Okay, I will stop thinking about this now. You know what I need? I NEED A DRINK, damn it. And also? A smoke. GRRR! Gah! Okay, I’m done. Phew. Sigh.

  5. Ren

    First, I haven’t followed this much at all and am only peripherally aware of the details. But based just on what you’ve written here, it seems like the system that if the case was as poor as you make it out to be, then the system failed when this went to trial at all. I suppose the system as a whole worked that out, but prosecuting with such scant evidence is, in and of itself, a failure.

    Of course, it’s entirely possible that the prosecution felt that a jury may render a guilty verdict despite the lack of evidence. Do you discount that possibility? Had that happened, would that be evidence of the system not working?

    My, admittedly lay, understanding is that it is up to the judge to determine matters of law and up to the jury to determine matters of truth. If the prosecution failed to even present a prima facie case — which is how I read what you’ve written — why didn’t (doesn’t in general?) the judge simply dismiss the case out of hand?

    • Avitable

      @Ren, there was a prima facie case. If there hadn’t been, it would have been dismissed. But that doesn’t mean that it meets the burden of reasonable doubt. If the jury were to render a guilty verdict despite the lack of evidence, the judge would be likely to render a JNOV, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, that would negate that verdict.

      • crisi-tunity

        @Avitable, I can’t remember a judge doing a JNOV on any prominent cases in the recent past. Does that happen often in Florida? It doesn’t in my neck of the woods.

        FTR, I work in civil law, not criminal, so I’m surprised to hear the words “prima facie” at all.

        No need to answer this if it’s boring law stuff that would only interest me.

        • Avitable

          @crisi-tunity, JNOVs are extremely rare, but they do happen. Judges are very hesitant to do that because it goes against the entire jury system.

          “Prima facie” is just as applicable in criminal as it is in civil law, too.

  6. cagey

    This is the best post yet I have seen regarding this.

    I was on a jury once about a “simple” case regarding racial stuff in a corporate workplace. I was on the jury for a week, it got very emotional and the whole thing gave me nightmares. Actual nightmares. As in, I lost SLEEP over it.

    Dude. I will never, ever look at a jury the same way after my experience on a jury in which a person’s life was not even at stake! We were only deciding damages that a major corporation was going to pay (and believe me, a few of my fellow jury members pointed that out – “who cares!? They can afford it!”)

    Holy crap! I cannot even begin to imagine the responsibility that the jury was feeling in this particular case.

    • MommaKiss

      @cagey, I have been on a jury as well. For a week – a doc was alleged to have sexually abused one of his patients. The poor girl had to testify. It’s the “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Adam pointed out. In our guts? Every member of the jury I was on felt like the guy did it. But based on evidence presented, the prosecution did NOT prove it beyond that reasonable doubt. After we said Not Guilty, the judge came in to thank us and told us that the doc was up on 3 other counts – same type of crime. I was sick. Sick.

      While I understand the burden or proof, I hate that there is still a dead little girl.

      • cagey

        @MommaKiss, wow – I can’t imagine going through THAT. On my jury it was myself and another gal (a Cuban American) who were the hold outs — we were essentially accused of being racist and at one point, the only black guy on the jury got in our faces and said that “we didn’t understand” and 2 other white gals on the jury brought up civil rights cases from the 1960s. Sigh. The rest of the jury were sheep. Total sheep.

        It made me realize that we have NO idea what is going on once the jury closes the doors.

        During our case, it came out the white guy and black guy had been really close friends for YEARS, but the friendship went awry and the black guy decided to sue the company.

  7. Insomniac Lab Rat

    This is the first time I’ve read your blog, and I have to say, I agree 100%.

    Casey Anthony obviously made some (BIG) mistakes, and told some lies. Beyond that, who really knows what she’s done? I didn’t watch much of the trial, so most of what I know is what I’ve heard or read after the fact, but it seemed to me that 1st degree murder was really pushing it with the circumstantial evidence they showed.

    I’m not a mother, but the thought of a mother killing her child makes me sick to my stomach, so I think I can understand the way many people are letting their emotions take over and I certainly understand wanting to see someone punished for what looks like a terrible crime.

    But the truth is, some crimes don’t get solved. Sometimes there just isn’t enough evidence to convict anyone, or to figure out what happened. It’s sad, and apparently it’s really hard for some people to accept, but it’s the truth. I know I wouldn’t want to live in a place where people just got chucked in jail with no proof…

  8. Superjules

    I feel like I should write something about how if you are going to tell The Internet at large that it is stupid then you’d probably have more luck using words it can understand.
    Something like: “Your stupid. Listen to logic, not just emotion’s!”

  9. fiwa

    I actually saw friendships break up over this subject on Facebook today. I’m glad I wasn’t on the jury, but being a crazy bitch doesn’t make you guilty of committing murder.

  10. Red Lotus Mama

    Another post proving why I love you.

    Here is what I told @Ooph … Honestly, I spent about .5% of my energy focused on this case. It is tragic, yes. A life taken way too soon. A family torn apart. A woman branded for life. Do I believe she did it … I have no idea. Is she a bad mother … seems like she wasn’t the greatest. Do I really care … no, not really. She has no affect on me or my family. She has not changed the face of the law or parenting. It is over for Casey Anthony. Double jeopardy has made sure of that.

  11. jc

    “This case was circumstantial.” Circumstantial cases are very common and can be tremendously powerful when there are many many pieces that fit together. Many death row inmates have been properly convicted of on much less evidence than was in this case.
    To your point #1. Your argument: Casey couldn’t be guilty of neglect because her daughter was already dead. Yes. exactly -ALREADY DEAD. Call me crazy, but seems to me that the fact the child who was in Casey’s care and was last seen with Casey is wound up dead is a big issue. And remember, Casey lied about Caylee being with an imaginary nanny for months, not just during the month Caylee was already dead. What did Casey do with Caylee in all those instances? In instances of the homicide of a child, most often a parent is the perpetrator. At the very least, in this case, there is rock solid evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this child died because of gross negligence on Casey’s behalf. Manslaughter conviction was more than proven. This jury failed.

    • Avitable

      @jc, you’re wrong. There is no rock solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the child died due to gross negligence. You are making assumptions.

      And if you actually read my post, I explained that the jury could not come back with a manslaughter conviction even if they had wanted to – they can’t just arbitrarily decide what charges to convict for. The jury can only consider the charges that the prosecutor gives them.

      • Nona

        @Avitable, I am not a lawyer, but I thought manslaughter was one of the counts the jury could consider.

        I agree that there was not a solid link that could lead to a murder conviction beyond a shadow doubt (reasonable is a bit subjective here.) And last time I checked, being a crazy skank and a pathological liar are not in of themselves capital crimes.

        People are emotional because they don’t like Casey and they hate what happened to Caylee. But blaming the justice system when it works (and alas, it did) is wrong.

        • Avitable

          @Nona, you’re right – I misspoke about the manslaughter, however, with the prosecutor pushing for the death penalty and first-degree murder, they were dissuaded from even considering manslaughter. And, honestly, the evidence was so circumstantial as to make that unlikely too.

  12. Nicci Rae

    Since my facebook feed blew up with all this “pass this rose on for Caylee” and “leave a porch light on for Caylee” stuff, I have done some reading and I agree with you. The evidence that actually connected her to Caylee’s death is not there. End of story. No connection, no guilty verdict, that is the way the justice system works in the US.

  13. Robin

    As I’ve said about this, shit isn’t fair, that’s life. Good for you for putting so clearly because these are things people should know. I think Casey is probably guilty, of something involving her daughter’s death but I know my husband was accused of a lot of awful shit during his divorce and I’m so glad that the fact that there was no truth to the accusations meant he wasn’t dragged any further through the ringers. I’m certain that if it had been brought out people would have assumed the worst and his life would have been ruined. That shit scares me, I’d rather a guilty person get off than an innocent person have their life ruined.

  14. Chris

    I agree with everything but the point about her being dead so their was no crime for endangerment.

    Just because it happened to work out that she died, doesnt mean she didnt think she was alive, and therefore knowingly endangered her life. Criminal neglect should have been tacked on to say the least. Some parents have gone to jail for spanking their kid, so this is far worse imo.

    As for the rest. Shut up everyone 🙂

  15. Miriam

    Well said and very true. The jury did exactly what they were supposed to do. Frankly, I’d be worried if, after all that lack of evidence, they DID convict her. THAT would have been a failure of the system. As far as the child herself, yeah it sucks, but there are tragedies all over this world every minute and no one cares because it’s not in the media. I can’t bring myself to get worked up over this if I’m not getting worked up over the bigger picture (which I’m not, because I’m a lazy asshole).

  16. Bob Richardson

    Amen! I was going to write along the same lines yesterday but then realized, I didn’t want to spend that much effort calling people stupid as I knew more eloquent writers would. The justice system worked as it should. If I could be convicted due to circumstantial evidence based on things I looked up on my computer, then I would be guilty so far of: The great Chicago fire, the Holocaust, Jesus’ crucifixion, the extinction of the dinosaurs, the big bang, and creating Barney the dinosaur.

  17. Kristen Fontaine

    I’ve got to admit it. When the jury came back with the not guilty verdict my first thought was “how the hell is she not guilty?!” But then I thought about it and saw your tweet and I completely agree. Yes, she’s a crazy bitch and sketchy as hell and probably had something to do with her daughter’s death. Unfortunately, you can’t be convicted for being a crazy bitch or sketchy as hell (but imagine if you could!). However, for the rest of her life she’ll have the same societal view of her as O.J. does and will never have the carefree life she wanted in the first place. So I guess in the end no one wins.

  18. Trilby

    I don’t blame the jury, or the people of Florida. I agree with you in that I think the State made a huge mistake by going for first degree and the death penalty with very circumstantial evidence.

    At the end of the day, this little girl is still gone. No amount of hate or anger towards her mother will change that. Casey has to live with whatever she did for the rest of her life and with the image in which the media has portrayed her.

    Had the State of Florida gone for Manslaughter and a prison sentence, I do believe Casey would sit in jail for a very long time. It doesn’t matter now. Without new evidence, I don’t think the State can bring charges again.

  19. MommaKiss

    I do agree with you. The legal aspects. But from one who was incredibly involved and obsessed with this case, that stems from my child being the same age as Caylee when she died. Had he gone missing, I’d have been batshit crazy to find him…anyway, that’s why I followed the case and got so involved – it hit a major nerve with me. Doesn’t change the outcome or affect her life. I realize that. Still makes me incredibly sad.

  20. trishk

    Good post Adam!

    The information that was available to the public came from the media and we know that the media is completely unbiased and honest, right? There are 3 people alive that know what really happened and someday one of them may talk, or not.

    I think the jury did a good job, with the information they had and within the parameters of the law.

  21. Roy

    Our legal system doesn’t guarantee a fair outcome but rather defines the defendant as innocent until proven guilty BEYOND reasonable doubt. Remember, not proven guilty without doubt doesn’t necessarily mean she’s innocent. The process worked….move on.

  22. hello haha narf

    i’m confused. over the weekend you post that you don’t care at all about the trial and now you claim to know whether or not facts were proven during it? i don’t know any of the facts nor have have i followed the details of this horrific child’s loss of life so i know i sure as shit wouldn’t be saying whether or not the prosecution did their job and what the only thing she is guilty of.

    • Avitable

      @hello haha narf, I don’t “claim to know” – I do know. Yesterday, I researched it before I wrote my post. I didn’t follow the trial at all and don’t care about it, but I got frustrated enough with all of the ignorant bitching that I researched it and wrote this post. So I feel perfectly comfortable giving my educated opinion on the topic now.

      • hello haha narf

        well that makes more sense. all you said on your blog was that you didn’t care and didn’t follow it, then that you read all over the internet people spouting opinions. now that i know you researched it i know you cared. heehee

  23. Mari

    I kept seeing all the b.s. on FB yesterday… crystal roses, semi trucks (WTF????), basic pass-it-alongs. All I could think was that everyone (or nearly everyone) I know is an idiot. Passing shit along on FaceBook? Really? Does that make you feel better about your pathetic life? Do your friends now feel that you are an authority on hot button issues? Do judge and jury for major cases look to you for ideas on how to serve justice?
    I get it, this was an emotional topic. People *want* the guilty to pay – even if they’re only perceived guilty. There wasn’t enough PROOF in this case, you’ll have to let God sort it out in the end.
    Thankfully there’s one person I knew would be logical about this. Thanks Adam. You’re a breath of fresh air! (hmmm, sort of)

  24. kapgar

    Admittedly I was one of those expressing shock over the verdict. But I did leave that behind in favor of trying to find a legitimate reason why the jury chose how they did. I’ve gotta say that your post is probably the best explanation why. I hate that she got off but I better understand why now. Thanks for that.

  25. martymankins

    You are right on many levels. No one buy Casey and Caylee knows what really happened. The jury made their decision based on what was presented to them.

    Where I stand on this is that this type of situation sends the message that even if you lie and bumble yourself through a trial, if you have a good enough counsel to represent you, it’s possible to get off lightly.

  26. Mo

    I know logically the verdict makes sense but it still sucks.

    I refuse to read another interview or watch her on TV. I won’t buy the inevitable books or watch the Lifetime Movie about any of it. Whether she’s guilty or not, I’ll be damned if I’m going to contribute to her profiting on the death of her daughter. Fuck Casey Anthony.

    That’s all I have to say about that!

  27. Rickey Cooper

    Most times I don’t comment on pages but I finally found someone that can look at the situation from a 3rd party perspective and take the emotional factor out. Honest I applaud you Yes if anything she is guilty of Child Neglect not murder in the first and if the jury could impose a punishment it would to have her beaten like a red headed step-child for her ignorance but that’s another story altogether the jury did judge properly and justice was served even though it did not sit well with a lot of people. So here’s the question how can we learn from this entire situation? anyone?

      • Rickey Cooper

        @Avitable, You are correct! Now what are you opinions on them not disclosing the new address that Casey will be living at xD. in a town where 75% of it’s populous want to give her greater or equal treatment? and what do think the odds are that she is gonna never live this down no matter where she goes?

  28. Fascination

    You do realise that Scott Peterson was convicted on less circumstantial evidence than the state had against Casey Anthony?
    I was a juror on a DUI case that didn’t involve a death or injury and we deliberated for longer than this jury did. And this was a capitol murder case!
    I can see your viewpoint but I have to respectfully disagree. Means, motive, opportunity and who benefits from Caylee’s death all point to Casey. I felt the state did have enough circumstantial evidence against her to convict of manslaughter.

    • Avitable

      @Fascination, sorry, but you’re wrong. In the Peterson case, there was not less circumstantial evidence in any way. There was motive and they knew the cause of death, two very important elements that were missing here.

      The jury didn’t deliberate for that long because there was reasonable doubt for the first-degree murder charge and they all knew it.

      • Fascination

        @Avitable, There was a definite motive in the Case Anthony case. John Douglas, who was one of the top FBI profilers, wrote in one of his books many years ago about “the young mother syndrome” (although he didn’t call it that). A young woman has a child, there is no father in the picture. She feels saddled down by this child because she can’t go out and party like her friends without kids can. She has a boyfriend who wants to be with her but doesn’t want to raise another man’s child. So, the child goes missing.
        John Douglas wrote that usually, these mothers claim their child has been kidnapped. Police end up finding the child’s body. The mother killed the child. The child is usually killed in a “soft kill” (such as smothering) and is almost always wrapped up or put in a bag.
        Sounds like Casey? She wanted a Bella vita to be free from her burden.

        • Avitable

          @Fascination, I was wrong on that, you’re right. However, the circumstantial evidence of Peterson going out on his boat, having multiple affairs, and then his wife and unborn baby washing up on shore, showing injuries that occurred at or before death – that’s much more significant than the Casey Anthony case.

          • Fascination

            @Avitable, I apologise if I wasn’t clear. The motive in the Anthony case that the prosecutors asserted (and which fits the FBI’s profile in what the motive often is for young mothers who kill their children) is that she wanted to be free from her “burden”. She constantly complained to friends about not being able to go to parties and spend time with her boyfriend, Tony Lazzaro.
            Also, she was almost obsessed with Lazzaro and he told her in no uncertain terms that, although he cared for her, he did not want a child. He especially didn’t want a daughter, he said, because he had sisters and saw how difficult raising them was for his mother.
            So, the motive was two fold. Being free from a child that she didn’t want in the first place (she originally wanted to give Caylee up for adoption) and having a life with the man she loved.
            I felt that Casey’s motive was shown as clearly as Scott Peterson and in fact, she lied to LE and everyone else even more than Peterson (at least Peterson called his in laws the day of Laci’s murder and didn’t wait 31 days).
            However, as I wrote before, I can understand your viewpoint and reasonable people can agree to disagree. Hell, most of my family are religious and I’m an atheist so I’m used to it, LOL.
            One thing I agree with you completely on is Nancy Grace. I had never watched her show but since so many people were mentioning her in connection with the Anthony case, out of curiosity I watched her show last night. How does that woman manage to have a show on television. She is one of the most annoying people I’ve had the displeasure of listening to. All she did was show pictures of Caylee with sappy music playing in the background, trying to enflame the public. That’s one hour of my life I’ll never get back, lol.
            BTW, if you like reading and are interested in psychology, profiling or true crime , check out John Douglas’ books. They’re very interesting. Sorry about any typos, I’m typing this on my IPhone.

          • Vince

            @Fascination, Susan Smith case was exactly like you just explained. She was dating a man that did not want kids. So she killed hers. Scary to read a few posts ago that this was common.

  29. Tiffany

    I agree with you 100%. I was pretty annoyed with all the FB posts about how the jury is stupid, justice isn’t served, Casey is guilty, etc. Reality is (I went off about this on FB myself), if they were to convict based on the circumstantial and/or compromised evidence ,they are only setting a very BAD precedent which would compromise the integrity of the legal system. Granted the legal system is not without flaw, but it does work. I would rather see this one walk, rather than take the chance of imprisoning a potentially innocent woman base on the sentiments of the public. It’s absolutely horrible that this child had to die, but it would be equally horrible to imprison a person based on personal feeling and not concrete evidence. Just my 2 cents.

  30. Tiffany Clay

    You’re so right. I had this same discussion with my very politically emotional grandmother – and because of your post I was able to be John Stewart to her Glenn Beck.

    Well done, yet again Adam.

  31. KaraB

    The thing that sucks about this, is that if, some day in the future Casey Anthony says, “Yes I did it exactly as they said I did”, nothing can be done about it. Until then, I suppose we will never know exactly what happened to that little girl. Sad, really.

    • Avitable

      @KaraB, well, double jeopardy does allow for future charges if new evidence is brought to light, so if a future confession had enough information in it to allow prosecutors to find new evidence, they could do something.

      • Trilby

        @Avitable, doesn’t Double Jeopardy protect you from being charged with the same crime in which you have already been CONVICTED? (ie. you can’t be tried for and convicted of robbing Bank A, and then be tried again, for the same instance of robbing Bank A.) Since she was acquitted, the same charges (or lesser charges) can be brought again, but the State must have new evidence. At least, that’s how I understand how double jeopardy is supposed to work.

        • Avitable

          @Trilby, it does, but there are exceptions. There are additional charges, like “conspiracy to commit murder” or other creative ways to try her again. In addition, federal courts still have the ability to try her if they determined that she violated any federal crime.

          • Trilby

            @Avitable, Okay. I’m more experienced with civil law, so all this is just what I remember from school. You learn something new every day 🙂 Thanks!

          • Vince

            @Avitable, paper mentioned something about possibly she could be charged again for same crime under hate crime law. I can’t see that happening. Also, a total long stretch, but federal charges could be filed, but again, not seeing it.

          • Fascination

            @Vince, There is a “movement” to try to get the government to step in (like they did in the Rodney King case after the policemen were acquitted) and charge her with violating Caylee’s civil rights. Same thing they charged the policemen with. However, I see it as very doubtful and I don’t particularly like the justice department to overturn a jury’s decision, even if I disagree with it. It sets a bad precedent in my mind.

          • Fascination

            @Fascination, P.S. Anyone havesome suggestions for how I can get rid of my insomnia?it sucks! I havea toddler (I’m a mommy) that wakes up very earlyand I’ve beenhaving trouble’s 4:00 am and I’m still up. My Dr gaveme some ambian but it’s not working! Help please! Any suggesstons anyone can give me, Id really appreciate it.
            I’m up at not reading “TheBrothers Karamavov” and surfing the Internet instead of sleeping!

  32. Jennifer

    Thanks for writing this. Now, I’ll just post this link on all the FB statuses that make me stabby cause they want me to turn on my porch lights, pass on poems or little angelic pictures of this little girl in her support (and I’m apparently an asshole for not doing so and also being vocal about how the judy did as it was instructed to do).

  33. Amy B.


    Throughout this case, there were three types of people who creeped me out even more than Casey did. 1) The people who would clamor and fight to get into the courtroom every day, some even flying in from as far away as the Pacific Northwest. 2) The people who were gathered in their favorite local outlets to hear the verdict, and who had honest to God breakdowns over it and 3) Nancy Grace.

    WTF is wrong with all of those people? Sheer boredom? Mass hysteria? Or in the case of Nancy Grace, something toxic in whatever hairspray she uses?

    I wonder how the Anthony family will be able to live after this. I wonder if Casey will try to have some drastic plastic surgery or something. If she does go under the knife, she needs to get the doctor to pin those ears back. There should be some kind of law against wearing a tight ponytail every damn day when you know full well you have Dumbo ears.

  34. faye dolan

    They should put some old white men – college educated – and INTELLIGENT as the only jury members who should ever appear on any type of jury. The dumbing down of the population in general ends in such travesty as the Casey Anthony acquittal. The jury members are mostly young, and have probably had similar life experiences as the Anthony woman, and are sympatico towards her. And they probably identified with the minority lawyer Baez and have hard feelings toward the establishment..represented by the white prosecutors. The system is completely broken. The jury is a checkered one…drug abuse, family problems and the like abound in this jury! Like OJ, the mostly all Black woman jury identified with the underdog, knowing full well he was guilty, but they hated the white judicial system more than they hated OJ. If TRUE justice is to prevail, it should be in the hands of the responsible ones, who have a brain. How would you expect the outcome to be any different considering the makeup of this particular pathetic jury???

      • Marie

        @Avitable, I can’t believe you told someone to die because they put their opinion up here for everyone to see. That was very harsh and very unnecessary. I thought you wanted people’s thoughts and opinions – it makes for great conversations on a blog. If everyone that disagreed with you died, well there would be no one left, along with all the stupid ones.


    • Fascination

      @faye dolan, Why are you so fucking rascist and ignorant? People can disagree civilly but you’re an ass.
      Yet another thing the blogger and I can agree upon.

    • KaraB

      @faye dolan, Wow, just wow. The jury is there so people on trial can be judged by their peers. I don’t know about you, but my peers are old white men with antiquated views.

  35. Allyson

    Can I still think the mom was a lousy one, and feel that at the very least, she deserves the loss of her child? Or does that make me an ignorant ass-fuck? Because like Loukia pointed out, regardless of how the child died, pretending like it didn’t happen is evidence of being a shitty mom… one who shouldn’t be allowed to breed again.

  36. Vince

    4. Well, I didn’t kill Caylee Anthony, so who did?

    Did it ever occur to you that this could have been an accident?

    Well problem there is she told police twice is was not an accident. There are 4 ways to die, barring “acts of God”: Natural causes, suicide, accidentally, and at the hands of another ( murder). It’s reasonable to rule out suicide and natural death. No one dies naturally with duct tape over mouth and stuff into a bag and bag tossed into wetlands. Those 2 are ruled out. Accidentally was ruled out when she told the cops twice it was no accident. That leaves one option left. If you prove murder, or disprove all of the other options, either way you arrive at murder. It’s simple logic and deduction. If I have 4 markers in my hand, all identical, and take one and draw a red line on wall, and ask you to figure out which one is red, do you look at the markers and say “I know one of these is red, but looking at it i can’t tell, so i will just say none of them.” , or do you take each one and draw a line until red pen reveals itself. Solutions are easy. It’s people watching CSI that make them difficult. They all want HD video of her doing it and a signed testimony from the Pope attesting that he saw her doing it. They had a mountain of evidence to sort through, and testimony to weigh, yet they spent appx.10 hrs, more likely 8 after breaks and eating and court poroceedings, to arrive at “I FEEL she was guilty but didn’t see motive.” (which the state never had to prove.) So after 40 days or so and some long days, they spend less time than it takes to watch season 1 of “30 Rock” on dvd and decide hell, the testimony and words of her parents, at least 1 cop, a tow truck driver who has handled 7 rotted corpses in his time, 2 cadaver dogs, and a guy that “farms” corpses for research has to mean shit cause defense witness, who smell the trunk months later, said so. You have a juror come out and insinuate that George knows something, when there wasn’t a shred of evidence presented that he did, and if he did, he wasn’t on trial. I’m not expert by any means, but what dna did they expect to find on duct tape that was submerges in water for months? Blood? Was casey going to flay off some skin from fingers and neatly ziplock baggie it to tape? That was one of many retarded statements that has come forth from this trial. Again, CSI-driven jury. 80+ searches for choloform? This wasn’t 80 searches done at public library by some homeless dude looking up “naked Cheerleader”, these were searches done on a computer at defendant’s home, done at a time when no one else was home, and coincidentally, the very same chemical is found in her trunk of car. In large amounts. Very. large. Amounts. The same trunk a hair that was proven came from someone in the Anthony family, but not from Casey, Lee, mom, and dad. Hmmm using logic i could arrive at…but wait. Since CSI season 4 episode dealt with same thing, it couldn’t possibly be from the deceased child. Wait, the hair was exact color and length of Caylee’s. And the banding proved that it came from a dead body. Hmmm “But where is the videotape???” Defense says this test is nonsense, trickery,unproven. DNA was too, once. Funny part is, research who developed this test have been unable to replicate it using a hair plucked from a live person. They didn’t develop this test for this case.
    Moving along to the lying. That alone isn’t enough to convict. hell, if it were the jails would be filled! But wipe the table clean and take a step back from the table. Let me lay this down. A child is missing. Has been for 30 days. The mother of the child is going out partying and carousing. Mother lies consistantly about whereabouts of child, and cannot provide a truthful shred of evidence as to where that child is. Child’s remains are found later, in the very vicinity of her house, at a location a friend has said the mother frequented often. Now read that. What is the single most important word in those lines? CHILD. Not earring, or watch or balloon, but a child. The very thing that should NOT be missing for 30 days and who’s location should NOT be unknown. Remember, too, that it was the grandmother that reported her missing, not the mother, who avoided any police involvement. And what finally made Grammie call cops? The trunk smelled like a dead body. She’s no expert, of course, but she could have said the trunk smelled like Velvetta cheese wrapper and Domino’s pizza crusts, but she didn’t. Unless Domino’s new sauce is made from extracted corpse fluid and Velvetta from rotted flesh, the smell, to her, was death. I’ve taken my trash down to dumpster several times after a long weekend and know what trash simmering in FL heat for days can smell like, and i grew up on a farm where i know what a dead animal smells like, they are quite different. I have never, and hope never to, smell a rotted corpse. Oh yeah, the car…never was in any else’s possession but the mother of the child.

    The griving expert was a complete waste of an afternoon. Basically she said grieving can take any form, and any range and could include any emotion. Could you please be a little more vague, ma’am?

    The case goes to jury and they have all this evidence, though none directly and concretely pegging her to tossing her child into swamp. The evidence is like puzzle pieces, which construct a picture of the guilty party. Flour isn’t the only ingrediant in a cake, but flour and other things make up cake. Same here, a hair from dead child doesn’t prove she killed her, but hair from a dead child, plus smell in trunk, plus missing child not reported, plus duct tape around the nose and mouth (the only 2 ways to intake oxygen, plus lies, plus fact mother said it was not an accident, plus fact she was only one with possession of child inthe 30 day range, plus fact everyone she mentioned that might have her or she was with never existed,…ehhh you get the idea, pieces of the puzzle start building a picture of the only one that could have done it, and had the means to do it, and the only one that stood to benefit from the child being gone. Before you start thinking what a horrible thing to say, ask Susan Smith why she killed her children. The guy she was seeing didn’t want children. People are shitty. What can i say? They do some of the most shittiest things to other people for the shittiest of reasons.
    This case was not presented as a slam dunk, open and shut, no-brainer. This case was presented from the get go as CIRCUMSTANIAL. According to Wikipedia ( i know i know) Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. Evidence in which an inference is required. Not evidence that reaches up off the table bitch slaps you in face, but evidence that requires one to THINK, and INFER what it means. It isn’t a Rorshach ink blot, requiring a guess, but one that requires you to infer what it means to a person’s guilt or innocence.
    What is becoming clear from 2 juror’s interviews is that they considered the evidence seperately and not as a whole. One also claims that George knows more than he says, which was beyond the scope of her duties. George wasn’t on trial. She was only to consider the evidence presented, not heinous insinuations without merit by defense lawyers. The alternate also says the state did not prove motive. The state did not have to prove motive. The state also did not have to prove exactly how she was killed. The 1st degree charge was pre-meditated or felon. Either one is 1st. Did the state prove murder? Maybe, maybe not, but they sure disproved any other possibility. Did the evidence point to 1st degree murder? Probably not. But that charge never should have been included. Charge 3 is the one that the jury SHOULD have settled on. Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. Weighing the evidence and inferring what possible use choloform could have and what possible reason a child’s remain could have for being duct taped over mouth and nose, this charge best fits the crime.
    Which leads this circus to plop down in the laps of the jury. I wasn’t in the jury room, so i not not say they were this or that, but i will say they came off as: 1) lazy, 2) unable to properly distinguish fact from fiction, 3) tired and wanting to go home 4) either ill-informed or totally clueless as to what they responibilites were in the jury room, 5) too spineless to ask for clarification of said duties, 6) apathetic as to the severity of the case, 7) unable to deciminate evidence and use logic and deduction, and 8) self serving, as seeing one get free lodging at disney world hotel (but not free to roam the parks…hotel manager swears!!!!) and one actually have the biggest set of brass balls ever known to man and demand $50,000 for an interview. I see now why they refused to give interview after trial, well besides it would make them late getting home for diner: They did not want to viewing audience to see what a complete clusterfuck of a jury they made. Besides, how DOES someone arrested for kitting checks get on a jury where the defendant kited checks? If I ever get charged with murder i want a jury from Pinellas made up of 12 people with prior arrests for murder.

    To sum up, i can only recite to you the headline of another blog i read yesterday: Do we really want a Casey Anthony jury at a terrorist trial? If after seeing the piss poor job they did INFERRING, Bin Laden would have walked. Scott petersen was convicted of very similar crime in Cali. The circumstanial evidence there? I single hair on a pair of pliers and the testimony of a stripper, usually the paragon of truthfulness…ask Cinnamon at the Kit Kat Klub, saying he loved her. Either that jury was wrong and this one right or was this one wrong and that jury right. It’s impossible that both were the same.

    • Fascination

      @Vince, As I wrote above, I thought state did prove motive. I thought it was, actually, very obvious. However, you’re right that the state doesn’t have to prove motive.
      For example, what was Ted Bundy’s motive? The stark truth is that he had severe sociopathy , enjoyed raping and murdering women and had a compulsion to do it. It’s not a cut and dry motive, though. If the state had to prove motive to convict, I think the average juror would be hardpressed to understand the “motive” of a serial killer. So, with absence of a motive would we have to let them go free?

        • Fascination

          @Avitable, I think you misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn’t very articulate in my reply.
          What I meant was that IF the state was REQUIRED in each case to present motive to get a conviction they would have difficulty convicting many people who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
          I’m well aware that with DNA and other forensic evidence (although I don’t believe they used DNA in most , or possibly any of the murders Ted Bundy committed because it wasn’t widely available back then, it was new science. I believe that they did use blood type evidence from semen found on victims though), that the state doesn’t have to prove motive. Although, juries usually want to hear evidence of motive.
          It was a hypothetical thought experiment, if you will, on how difficult it would be to convict certain types of criminals if the jurors demanded motive in every case or if by law, the prosecution had to prove a viable motive.
          Do you see my meaning now? Again, sorry if I wasn’t clear.

    • Avitable

      @Vince, you missed the point completely. I’ll use small words for you:

      It’s also a plausible scenario that:

      1. Caylee dies accidentally, whether through negligence or not on her mother’s part.

      2. Casey freaks out and puts her in the trunk.

      3. She decides to come up with a story about her daughter being kidnapped because she doesn’t know what else to do.

      4. She researches certain terms, and then puts her daughter in the trunk as if she had been kidnapped (wrapped in plastic, mouth covered in duct tape) and then buries her in the woods.

      There is NO proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her daughter. Is it likely? Yes. But it doesn’t meet that burden of proof.

      Murder was the one pushed by the prosecutor. If instead, it wasn’t even on the table, and the death penalty was not an option, manslaughter would have been possible, but even then, the burden of proof isn’t met.

      The jury did their job. This is not the same as the Peterson case in any way. There are always different facts and different evidence available. And your whining about the jury just makes you look even more like a moron.

      • Vince

        @Avitable, Your arguement fades at step one. It wasn’t an accident because she specified twice there was none. So basically what you are saying is that even though there is no evidence to prove an accident, the jury was to assume the possibility there was one? Hell, why not assume the possibility that the creature from the black lagoon took her? The point here is not that the state overcharged or that they didn’t present enough, but what is the definition of “reasonable”. It could mean one thing to you and something completely different to someone else. Where I come off as “moronic” or “unable to understand big words”, you come off as scared shitless that, despite the fact you aren’t caught in the act, you could go to jail for life based on circumstantial evidence. That really scares the piss out of you, doesn’t it, that science is rapidly replacing the need for eyewitnesses. But you know what? If you don’t want to risk facing a needle based on a smell from your trunk and hair from corpse in said trunk, and a ragged t-shirt wrapped around the corpse’s head that matches exactly one that you were known to wear, there is a simple solution…DON’T FUCKING STRANGLE SOMEONE WITH A CONCERT SHIRT FROM MILLI VANILLI AND DRIVE AROUND WITH THE CORPSE IN YOUR TRUNK FOR DAYS TILL IT STINKS! There is a reason why me and you weren’t brought up on her charges…none of the circumstantial evidence pointed to us. There also is a reason why members of her family weren’t brought up on charges…the circumstantial evidence didn’t point to them. You can’t piss and moan like a pussy about it only being circumstantial if all of it points to you and you were the last person seen with the deceased and cannot or will not truthfully explain what happened.
        It’s reasonable to assume that 6 numbers from 1-49 will hit in this weeks lotto. It’s reasonable to assume that any 6 numbers can hit. It’s reasonable that you feel like numbers 1-6 will hit. Knowing full well 6 consectutive numbers have NEVER hit in florida lotto, is it reasonable to assume that this week it might just cause you played them? NO. Possible, but not reasonable. Goddamn mate, the term is reasonable, not all-inclusive.
        Let’s play pretend here. Say, move the trial to New York. Replace Casey with Bin Laden or Shek Khallid. The trial starts and the gov’t presents roughly the same amount of circumstantial evidence as in this case. You seriously and honestly would say, Well fuck it all, Andy, it could have been his butler that paid for it all. Or maybe it was an accident and he didn’t mean to order those men to fly those planes into the towers. I’m not seeing it. Since i can’t infer from this and the gov’t didn’t connect all the dots for me, and lacking video of call to hit the US, I better let him go. If you seriously answer yes, you’d let him go, you are a gigantic dingleberry on the asshairs of life.

        PS …manslaughter WAS one of the charges. They found her not guilty. Manslaughter is causing the death of someone else without spite. They found her not guilty of manslaughter cause the duct tape over breathing orifices constituted spite. So the murder didn’t do enough for murder 1 but did too much for manslaughter. Go figure.

        • Fascination

          @Vince, There was some forensic evidence in the case against Casey but of course the defense bought experts that disagreed with them (although, not totally sometimes).
          Several of the forensic experts for the state were from the FBI.

  37. Hitmanshitman

    How about this scenario. If I’m a juror, I disregard the fact the prosecution has a lack of evidence. I find her guilty based on the evidence that IS there and send her to her death. And I wouldn’t lose a bit of sleep knowing that I sent her to death row. Oh yeah, that would be because I’m a real man. Man up, America. At least Texas got it right when they just killed that rapist beaned about 40 min ag against Obama and U.N wishes.

  38. slb

    The jury could have convicted her of manslaughter because of culpable negligence. Even juror #2 has come forward to say that they were deadlocked 6-6 for this charge and that those pressing for guilty were “convinced” (i.e. pressured) by other jurors to change their minds. what was this logic that convinced them? they didn’t know who the caregiver of Cayley was at the time of death…really? the judge said in instructions that Casey was a caregiver (as well as any other adult in the household). the jury didn’t take the time to understand the judge’s instructions or to seek clarifications. they were exhausted, lazy, and wanted to be done. I would have respected their decision more if they had more real logic at to explain how the evidence they heard didn’t constitute culpable negligence.

    • Avitable

      @slb, that’s why it’s called deliberation. The jury needs to reach an unanimous decision, and clearly, in this case, the burden of proof was not beyond a reasonable doubt for culpable negligence for half the jurors. Calling them lazy is pure assumption on your part and removes all credence your argument may have had.

      • slb

        @Avitable, I am not assuming anything. I am merely taking information from a direct interview with juror #2. He did not say that they reviewed the testimony and found that Casey was not the caregiver or that we found someone else to be the caregiver at the time. Nor did he say that we carefully reviewed the evidence and we still couldn’t determine who the caregiver was. He simply said that they did not know who. That to me is lazy given the gravity of the case. Moreover, I respect that their decision was difficult either way. I really don’t know what the right decision was. However, the jurors are coming forward and speaking in such a way to demonstrate that they did not do their due diligence and could not present coherent logic to back up their decision. this should be the bare minimum in a case of this nature.

  39. Brandon

    This is the first post of yours that I have read and I am absolutely agreeing with you. I just don’t understand how people are so quick to judge her for something that she may not have even committed in the first place, plus there wasn’t even enough evidence to prove that Casey committed this crime. But yes, all in all it is very sad that a little child was killed.

      • Krëg

        @Avitable, Yeah, whatever.
        That whole Anthony thing is yesterday’s news anyway. Let’s change the channel and see what else is on T.V. now. Because as an American, I can’t be bothered to care about things that aren’t beamed into my eyeballs out of a glowing rectangle, and I certainly am incapable feeling my own feelings. And why would I want to form my own opinion anyway, when it is so much easier to just parrot whatever half-formed thought is leaking from the face of my favorite talking head? Is…is it outrage that I should be feeling? I can’t remember if the news and social media said I should be outraged or despondent or patriotic. I should probably go log into something and double-check.

  40. Fascination

    Here’s a little bit from that link

    Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

    With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the mens rea levels of “purposely” or “knowingly.” The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.

    One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual’s guilt.

    Forensic evidence

    Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts, but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered to be circumstantial in nature. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to the development in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

    A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh’s trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, “Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence”. [1] The 2005 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

    Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

    In practice, circumstantial evidence has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.[citation needed] Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate at times,[citation needed] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Good strong circumstantial evidence can be a far more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.[citation needed] Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

  41. Fascination

    Here’s some interesting info. Aggravated manslaughter was one of the charges (along with child abuse the jury had as a choice to convict her on)
    § 782.07, Fla. Stat.
    To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following
    two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
    2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.
    The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey
    Marie Anthony.
    I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably
    toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that
    violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward
    others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is
    a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to
    its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious
    indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless
    disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is
    equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

    The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety
    of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the
    defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great
    bodily injury.
    If you find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, you must then
    determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony
    was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver.
    “Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.
    “Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s
    “Neglect of a child” means:
    1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services
    necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would
    consider essential for the well-being of the child;
    Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could
    reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in
    determining neglect.

    I think the jury certainly should have found her guilty of this. Even with the “accident theory” (of which there was no evidence) for failing to provide medical care when she discovered her child had drowned. Possibly Caylee could have been resuscitated. Of course, I think there was no pool “accident” but this shows even with that theory they could have and should have convicted Casey on this lesser charge. Shrug…. Who knows what they were thinking. I’ve found that most people don’t know the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence and that circumstantial is often the strongest (for instance, with forensics which are almost always considered circumstantial evidence).
    In fact, when people are wrongfully convicted, it’s usually because of direct evidence (like eyewitness testimony or a false confession). When they are exonerated it’s almost always with CURCUMSTANTIAL evidence like DNA!

    • Fascination

      @Avitable, the charge above, along with second degree murder and aggravated child abuse were all charges the jury had the choice of convicting her on. The prosecution didn’t just push for first degree murder, they put in lesser charges as well

      • Rebecca

        @Fascination, I agree- but I think the only way it would have stuck is if the DA had went in with the manslaughter charges in the beginning. With the amount of evidence he had (or didn’t have) he should have done that to begin with. I tend to think he hoped to go out on a ‘career ender’ with a high note of a death penalty conviction and figured the media attention alone would get her a guilty verdict.
        They did have the chance to convict on lesser charges and I’m kind of baffled as to why the neglect or endangerment charges didn’t even stick. I think that’s a big reason folks are questioning the juries choices- because convicting her of nothing makes as much sense as convicting her of murder with such scant evidence.

        • Fascination

          @Rebecca, Yeah, I agree they should have went with a lesser charge. I think it might have been the intense public pressure and all the media BS that made them include first degree premeditated murder. Shrug…..who knows.
          The good thing is that I’ve learned alot about reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence this past week! LOL

  42. Candee

    I agree with some of what you said but not with the part about it being an accident that Casey panicked and covered up. First, the chief medical examiner for Orange County, Dr. Jan Garavaglia, testified on the stand that in 100% of accidental death cases involving a child, the caregivers or parents always report it to authorities. Always. We don’t know the cause of death, but we know the manner of death was homicide. Even if you want to believe that because Casey is so immature or weird or whatever that she would not have reported it, it doesn’t explain the duct tape. The duct tape was not merely “stuck” to Caylee. There were 3 strips of duct tape that were very deliberately wrapped around Caylee’s head to cover her nose and mouth and cover any gaps where air could have entered and allowed her to breathe. If Caylee was already dead, then why would that have been done? Casey’s parents did not know where Caylee was until her body was found six months later in December 2008. The contents of George Anthony’s suicide note proves it. Lastly, I have no sympathy for Casey because she had every opportunity for 3 years to tell the truth if in fact it had been an accidental death. Why did she lie and continue to lie right up until the time the case went to trial and she knew she was being charged with first degree murder and could get the death penalty? I guess that’s what happens when you lie–you weave a very tangled web for yourself. It’s her bed, she made it, let her lie in it.

    One more thing–the jury did have a choice in finding her guilty of a lesser charge. They could have found her not guilty on the first-degree murder charge but found her guilty on the abuse and/or manslaughter charges.

  43. Bryan

    “We are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Well, not quite. We are to be PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty; we are to be TREATED as innocent until proven guilty, but if someone commits a crime, they are guilty the moment they do it. Sometimes they get away with it–guilty people are found innocent–and sometimes, sadly, the opposite happens–innocent people are judged to be guilty.

    I don’t know what happened in this particular case; all I’m saying is that it’s not the judge banging the gavel and saying, “Guilty!” that makes you guilty, it’s you doing the crime.

  44. Rebecca

    I tend to think you have to be a parent yourself to understand the visceral reactions that people are having. I see the logical face that to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you need concrete PROOF that the person being convicted did indeed commit the crime. Given the state of the body and the lack of any real evidence, it’s not surprising that she wasn’t convicted. I’ve said it since they announced the death penalty- she’d never get convicted. Like you said, if it had been life in prison? Whole nother story.
    But that also doesn’t keep me from believing she’s a sociopathic liar, and having met a few of those in my time, I have no doubts of what a true sociopath is capable of… People have a hard time wrapping their heads around a mother who could kill her own child, especially premeditated (as they scant amount of ‘evidence’ pointed to- chloroform look up, heart sticker- given the lack of a photo of it though, not exactly evidence but hearsay- and whatnot) Even me, being a woman, is able enough to remove my emotions and see it for what it is… but my husband? My Mr. Macho husband, bulked at the idea and almost acted as though I were defending her when I mentioned the lack of actual proof. It’s hard, as a parent, to NOT put yourself in that position, because truly- if it were an accident, as you state, the course of action is NOT to hide it, but freak the fuck out and call 911. So many of her stories inconsistency stick in people’s craws and thus, if it were up to public opinion, she would have been strung up and dangling from a tree 3 years ago.

    The fact is, the justice system didn’t fail- the DA trying the case did. He should have did a much better job in terms of evidence collection, not dropped the ball and been so arrogant in his assumption that the media attention alone would get her convicted, and he should have NEVER went in for the death penalty with that little evidence.

    Do I think she’s guilty? I think she has a LOT to hide, and I wouldn’t be surprised if murder was one of them. Let’s just leave it with this: I hope she doesn’t have any more kids. EVER. Because whether or not she did kill her, she sure as shit didn’t report it when she should have and someone who can party while their kid is missing isn’t exactly mother material.

  45. Ellobern

    Except the computer searches for chloroform as well as neck breaking and some other ominous term occurred in March. And if you think your scenariou is so plausible, why didn’t the defense use it instead of all the b.s.? The defense knew the prosecution had compelling, although circumstantial, evidence and they were going to go for getting her declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. But that didn’t work. The defense came into the courtroom on verdict day looking scared as hell. They thought she would get life. Not very confident, for a client not guilty, hmmm?

  46. lorrie @ clueless in carolina

    I’m a lawyer, and I completely agree with your reasoning.

    Going for the death penalty was the stupidest thing ever. I believe there would have been a quick conviction on involuntary manslaughter.

    I think she was using chloroform to keep the child quiet and used too much and panicked.

    Also, I think the authors of Freakanomics would agree with me that 35 years ago Casey would have had a quick abortion or put the kid up for adoption at birth. Today, with “Teen Mom” shows and general societal pressure at work, I think Casey thought it would be fun and attention getting to have a baby and was shocked when her parents didn’t eagerly step up to the plate to babysit every time she wanted to go out with her friends.

Leave a Reply