There was no “surefire” evidence that Scott Peterson killed his wife either, yet the jury added up all the circumstantial evidence and found him guilty and recommended death. There is enough circumstantial evidence in this case and it all points to Casey Anthony.
While “beyond reasonable doubt” sounds like a description of a high standard, I think it’s commonly perceived to be a much higher hurdle than it really is. There IS a lot of wiggle room in a word like “reasonable”. Sure, there are conceivably people who will have doubts … but are their doubts “reasonable”? And to whom are they “reasonable”?
That “reasonable” line is not necessarily laid down at the same point in every trial. We’re dealing with humans at every turn, so the wiggle room is unavoidable.
From my internet jury’s view it seems like guilty but no death penalty. I mean, I’m against the death penalty anyway, but this really doesn’t seem to deserve it; there are just enough uncertainties to make it seem like there’s a tiny possibility that there could be an appeal based on different scientific evidence or extra witnesses in the future. But guilty beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t mean guilty beyond all doubt at all; reasonably, it looks like she’s guilty now, but enough to kill her? Nah.
Hopefully the jury has a lot more information than we do.
Except that the parents were subsequently exonerated. Just Wiki, but its cites are valid for the exoneration.
She may not have even liked the kid, so her emotion to the death may well have been relief and good riddance. That in and of itself is not evidence of guilt though it’s basically why she is on trial.
Interesting testimony today. Cindy said she did the searches for chloroform and she had told the investigators she had done so. She also said the stain was in the trunk when they bought the car.
No surprise here to me. Those facts fit totally consistent with what really happened in this case.
Its a jigsaw puzzle folks(all death cases are), and there is only 1 scenario where all the pieces and everything fits and where everything is consistent with no contradictions.
You are prosecuting the wrong person.
No. Not true. In those other cases, everything pointed to Scott Peterson. Ditto everything pointed to OJ Simpson. In both of those cases all the pieces fit that both Scott Peterson and OJ Simpson were guilty (regardless of the jury’s verdicts). The pieces ALWAYS fit when the correct person is on trial. They have to.
In the case of Casey, Casey did not kill the child, so you are always going to end up trying to squeeze in the wrong jigsaw pieces and you are always goingto end up with extra jigsaw pieces because it was not Casey who did it.
Unfortunately for Cindy, nearly everything she said today about the computer searches is completely contrary to the evidence (and at times even at odds with her own testimony).
I’m starting to see why Casey seems to think she can talk her way out of everything…
-
Cindy did the chloroform search.
-
George put the body in a bag.
Casey’s “involvement” is that she is aware that George, the ex-cop, got rid of Caylee’s body, and that Casey was never in a position to stop him, or argue with him, or even to attempt try to get people to believe what really happened. Nobody would ever believe Casey anyway, most especially if Casey tries to accuse an ex-cop. It aint gonna happen, and Casey is smart enough to know that she could never convince anyone that it was an ex-cop that tried to cover this all up. Casey was always between a rock and a hard place, and she had no choice other than to let her dad do whatever he was going to do(hide the body) and for Casey to try pretend all this never happened.
Is Casey guilty of “complicity”? Yeah, sure, but Casey did not kill the child, nor did Casey hide the body.
But … Casey is trying to convince everyone that the ex-cop killed Caylee and also that the ex-cop molested her for years. How, in your fevered imagination, can you think that Casey is too smart to try and convince us that he hid the body, given the actual song and dance she’s selling for us now?
The duct tape was not “attached” in the sense that tape would be attached to an object. The adhesive on the tape had long since deteriorated. It was “stuck” to the skull in the manner you might find a strip of paper or cardboard “fused” to an obeject that had been in constant contact under certain conditions. Ever see paper, cardboard or fabric “attached” to something dug up in a pile of garbage left to the elements? I’ve seen chicken bones attached to napkins in garbage dumps. No tape involved.
I wonder, a can** “you”**, AuntiePam, tell us exactly what searches you did on your own computer on February 11, 2007? Also, do you know if you or your daughter was home that day at 2pm?
I am not picking on AuntiePam, anyone can jump in and answer.
Quite frankly, I personally, don’t even remember what I had for lunch that day.
And neither fact is credible, IMHO. A few things I expect to come up in the state’s rebuttal:
- The internet searches:
There will be no record of searches for the word “chlorophyll,” as Cindy claims.
Cindy did not use Firefox.
Even if she did use Firefox, she had no idea how to clear the history.
Whoever did the searches for “chloroform,” “how to make chloroform,” etc., was toggling back and forth from the Google results and MySpace/FaceBook. Cindy did not have an account on either network, and there will be no evidence she ever used or visited them.
- The trunk stain:
Notice how Drane-Burdick asked Cindy to illustrate where the stain was? Cindy highlighted an area in the upper left of the picture, toward the front of the trunk.
The damning stain was actually toward the middle of the trunk, on the spare tire cover.
this.
I’d like to hear Cindy elaborate on how a search for Chlorophyll led to one on Chloroform, because her explanation as is makes no sense at all. Also, if she was concerned about her dogs eating bamboo, why would she search for a chemical present in all green plants?
I hate to say it, but frankly Cindy sounded a whole lot like Casey did in her police interviews. They both think it sounds more believable to add extraneous details to their stories, regardless of how believable/falsifiable they are.
Thanks - that helps -
No, and that’s the point. Cindy says she remembers when she did those searches, even though the records indicated that she was working.
It’s believable that she remembers leaving work early for a few days in March, because of family holidays, but all she can honestly say is that ‘It’s possible’ that she did the searches on those particular days.
But like 5-HT says, a search for chlorophyll makes no sense in that context, and it doesn’t lead to chloroform.
So much for that, I guess.
I saw your last comment on the other Anthony thread. I can not understand why anyone would “hope” that Cindy’s testimony was not true. That makes no sense to me and I cant respond to anyone who thinks that. 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 and verified against her work records and other employees to be completely 100% true? I am speechless.
Bye. I give up. I will leave all of you … to yourselves.
Uh-huh. Why can’t the truth be that Casey murdered her daughter just as the state has alleged, and that George Anthony had absolutely nothing to do with it? Why can you not accept the fact that Casey Anthony is lying and all those other witnesses are not? Why is it that the “truth” must fit your bizarre theories and not that of the available evidence?
And BTW, peppering your posts with…strings of periods…really makes you…look dumb. Just…sayin’.