# Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 29, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652 "2011-05-29T12:50:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/221 "2011-06-23T23:17:58Z")
> [@diogenes the cynic](#): > > that one person was nobody in the family. lol!!! Lmao!!! ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/222 "2011-06-23T23:28:05Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Off topic, but if you read everything about the JonBenet case there is only 1 person who did it that explains EVERYTHING. Okay. Who? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/223 "2011-06-23T23:29:14Z")
The DNA on the body did not match anyone on the family. They are all excluded. It’s called science. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/224 "2011-06-23T23:31:24Z")
I didn’t think too much about the chloroform one way or the other. The state didn’t introduce any evidence that Casey had the materials to make it, and the evidence about the amount of chloroform in the car was contradictory. One expert said a lot and the other said a little. The State needed the chloroform to show premeditation though, and now there’s very reasonable doubt. The question is will the jurors believe that Cindy searched for “chlorophyll” first, rather than something more logical, like “lethargic dog – bamboo”. I don’t believe her, and I hope someone at the place where she worked can prove that she really was at work during the time she said she was at home on the computer. What was her job anyway? If she was nursing, there’d be notes on patient charts. Maybe her work computer records are still available. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/225 "2011-06-23T23:32:29Z")
@Susanann. Are you trolling or whoosing? In case not, there are ALWAYS loose ends. Why? Because one individual can’t know what happened. If you are innocent and blameless, yet have an explanation for everything, then you are making something up. If you are that detached and where screwed over, there will invariably be a few details that you don’t know about. So, you can add, “workplace screws up your timesheets on the one day that is CRUCIAL to proving you innocent of murder” to my above list. How often does all of what I listed happen to you or anyone you know, or anyone in the US, or anyone in the history of the world? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/226 "2011-06-23T23:44:33Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > The question is will the jurors believe that Cindy searched for “chlorophyll” first, rather than something more logical, like “lethargic dog – bamboo”. According to that link I posted up above, the original search was for the misspelling, ‘chloraform’. The results came back for chloroform, and one of the links she clicked on led to the wiki page on it. Someone also searched for ‘how to make chloroform’ and ‘making weapons out of household products’, among other things. If there were searches for chlorophyll, dog poison, bamboo or anything else to support Cindy’s story in the search history - the defense didn’t mention it. (I think Casey’s guilty and Cindy’s lying for her, but I sure hate to think what I’d be accused of if anyone checked my Google history!) ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/227 "2011-06-23T23:48:32Z")
Cindy said she’s a full time, salaried employee. I know at my job we always enter 8 hours a day on our timesheet, unless we take sick leave or vac leave. If I work 10 hours one day, then I will take off and go home early another day. Or I’ll take a long lunch. My hours have some flexibility. The timesheet won’t show that. Most jobs I’m aware of allows this in professional jobs. We aren’t flipping burgers. We don’t have supervisors with timeclocks watching every second we are at work. We’re expected to be honest in our work attendance. If I come in 30 minutes late, then I make it up with a short lunch. Cindy was a supervisor at her job. I’m not surprised her timesheets didn’t show every single day she worked late or went home a little early. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/228 "2011-06-23T23:59:14Z")
I apologize for interjecting the JonBenét Ramsay case in this thread. I’ll open another thread in IMHO about it, since I started this whole mess. Please [continue that discussion there](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613697) if you want. Dear fellow posters, sorry for messing up this thread… ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/229 "2011-06-24T00:55:14Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Cindy said she’s a full time, salaried employee. > > I know at my job we always enter 8 hours a day on our timesheet, unless we take sick leave or vac leave. > If I work 10 hours one day, then I will take off and go home early another day. Or I’ll take a long lunch. My hours have some flexibility. > The timesheet won’t show that. > > Most jobs I’m aware of allows this in professional jobs. We aren’t flipping burgers. We don’t have supervisors with timeclocks watching every second we are at work. We’re expected to be honest in our work attendance. If I come in 30 minutes late, then I make it up with a short lunch. > > Cindy was a supervisor at her job. I’m not surprised her timesheets didn’t show every single day she worked late or went home a little early. Thing is - unless someone corroborates her story - written records will always trump verbal testimony, especially in the case of a mother testifying on behalf of her child. There will _have_ to be corroborating testimony here, it will be easy to impeach Cindy otherwise. ETA, I haven’t signed a timesheet in 16 years now - It would take computer forensics to prove when I was/wasnt working, and since I now work from home, it wouldn’t make much difference. Of course, there are also 4 adults living here and 5 computers - lord knows what a google history would find. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/230 "2011-06-24T01:09:06Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Sorry, you do not know the facts of either case. That is not what happened. > > The true real life facts are that : > > 1. “Richard Kimble”/Dr. Sam Shepard was found **Guilty** , and > > 2. OJ was found **Not Guilty**. > > (unfortunately, nobody on the either jury listened to me) I know that. The fact that the juries got it wrong doesn’t mean you were the only one who got it right. Surely we’ve all seen the comparison from back then on the OJ case, where white respondents overwhelmingly felt he was guilty and black respondents felt he was not guilty. Clearly a lot of people thought he was guilty at the time. As far as the other case goes, you’re going to have to elaborate. You keep using both names, so are you talking about the real case or the tv show that was rather loosely based on it? I have no idea what the public at large felt in 1954, or even how widely covered it was. My response was based on the fact that in the TV show, the opening voice-over states he was innocent. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/231 "2011-06-24T01:12:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The DNA on the body did not match anyone on the family. They are all excluded. It’s called science. DNA on the body would certainly help INCLUDE people on the suspect list, but lack of DNA on a badly decomposed body doesn’t exclude them. But I’m sure you knew that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/232 "2011-06-24T01:23:44Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > DNA on the body would certainly help INCLUDE people on the suspect list, but lack of DNA on a badly decomposed body doesn’t exclude them. But I’m sure you knew that. There was DNA on the body which did not match any of the Ramseys. It wasn’t a LACK of DNA that excluded them. Plenty of their DNA was around. They also found the KILLER’S DNA, and it didn’t match any of the Ramseys. They were [Exonerated by the Boulder DA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey#Letter_from_District_Attorney:_Ramsey_family_exonerated) based on this exclusion. ---
**Author:** ![5-HT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/f19dbf/32.png) [@5-HT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/5-HT)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/233 "2011-06-24T01:35:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There was DNA on the body which did not match any of the Ramseys. It wasn’t a LACK of DNA that excluded them. Plenty of their DNA was around. They also found the KILLER’S DNA, and it didn’t match any of the Ramseys. They were [Exonerated by the Boulder DA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey#Letter_from_District_Attorney:_Ramsey_family_exonerated) based on this exclusion. sorry, I thought you were talking about the Anthony case. yeah, I agree about the Ramseys ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/234 "2011-06-24T01:37:21Z")
Oh, ok then. I think CA is guilty as hell. ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/235 "2011-06-24T02:53:26Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > There are never any loose ends if you are right, and in this case, all the evidence says that the child died directly or indirectly because of George, then George took over and hid the body. Casey very well might have been aware(complicit) that her father was taking control, but Casey did not take part in the death at all, Casey did not kill the child, nor did Casey take part in any coverup, nor did Casey hide the body… **George** did it all. (It also would probably surprise me if Cindy knew that George did it - I am not blaming the mother Cindy) There is not a lick of evidence to indicate that any of this is true. > [@](#): > > …I am used to being the only one who sees things clearly. You know there is a medical term for this condition, right? ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/236 "2011-06-24T03:09:37Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > . . .I am the only one who knew that OJ Simpson killed Nicole for another example. It does not matter that all 12 jurors voted oj > “Not Guilty” nor that everyone else on this Straight Dope thinks OJ was inocent… because I myself knew that everything about the crime fitted OJ doing it I alone knew that OJ was guilty of murder, and apparently I alone knew that nobody else killed Nicole and Ron. Where do you come up with this drivel? Everyone on the SDMB thinks OJ Simpson was innocent? [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1168) is a poll from last year on the subject. Fewer than 4% of those voting in the poll believed Simpson was innocent. And I’m not even sure that 4% wasn’t joking/trolling. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/237 "2011-06-24T03:13:06Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > I didn’t think too much about the chloroform one way or the other. The state didn’t introduce any evidence that Casey had the materials to make it, and the evidence about the amount of chloroform in the car was contradictory. One expert said a lot and the other said a little. The State needed the chloroform to show premeditation though, and now there’s very reasonable doubt. > > The question is will the jurors believe that Cindy searched for “chlorophyll” first, rather than something more logical, like “lethargic dog – bamboo”. > > I don’t believe her, and I hope someone at the place where she worked can prove that she really was at work during the time she said she was at home on the computer. What was her job anyway? If she was nursing, there’d be notes on patient charts. Maybe her work computer records are still available. IMHO, the ‘amount’ of chloroform in the car wasn’t contradictory - the defense made it appear so, but it wasnt - prosecution witness A said there was high levels - he was specifically testing for ‘quantity’ - the other witness only tested for ‘presence’, so he had no ability to quantify how much. THe way the questions were raised, it sounds like their was a conflict - the reality is that the two experts tested from a different perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/238 "2011-06-24T03:58:02Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > … and I hope someone at the place where she worked can prove that she really was at work during the time she said she was at home on the computer. . I guess I have had enough of this topic, since I can not understand why anyone would “hope” that Cindy’s testimony was not true. Why not hope \*\*for the truth to come out \*\*no matter what the truth is? Why cant people want the truth? Why not hope that what Cindy said today can be totally completely proven to be true? I cant take this. It blows me away that you, or everyone else, or anyone else, would actually “hope” that what Cindy said was not true. I give up. I will leave you all… to yourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/239 "2011-06-24T04:12:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > @Susanann. Are you trolling or whoosing? [Moderator Note]Accusations of trolling are not to be made outside of The BBQ Pit-don’t do it again. I suggest that you, and others, dial back the vitriol and stick to discussing the trial and not each other.[/Moderator Note] ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652/240 "2011-06-24T14:48:01Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Actually, everything fits\*\* ALL THE TIME!!!\*\* if you have the truth, it has to , because the truth always fits. There are no loose ends when you have the true story. There are no inconsistencies when you have the truth. There are no contradictions when you have the truth. So very very not true. Evidence in a criminal case is like a jigsaw puzzle. There are many pieces, and they all go somewhere in the puzzle, but unless you have amazing slam-dunk evidence, there are _always_ missing pieces. The question is, do you have enough pieces? If you’ve done a puzzle, you know that you can tell what the picture is long before you’ve finished the puzzle. At some point, when enough pieces are put together, you know that the finished picture is a butterfly. Adding a few more pieces isn’t going to transform it into a pancake breakfast. If the evidence satisfies the elements of the crime, the jury is justified in a verdict of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, even if there are pieces still missing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-following-the-casey-anthony-trial/583652.md?page=13)