Serena said:

TonyVanDam said:

Like hell they don't! If any Medical Examiner can NOT prove how any homicide is committed, then sadly, you have the results of a potential "reasonable doubts". They could not find any of Casey Anthony's DNA samples anywhere on Caylee's dead body, the car trunk, or within the wooded/swamp area. Therefore, the potential of "reasonable doubts" were there.

The ME said it was Homicide, they do not have to prove the manner of death, especially when all they have is a SKELETON. There are many homicide cases where the manner of death is not known

Of course they're not going to find any DNA on the body, there was no BODY, only a skeleton that was left in a swamp, even going through a hurricane, for months. The area was flooded during that time, any evidence would've washed away. How do you expect DNA to go from the skin and then stay on the bones over all that time? Both sides brought in bug experts who testified about what bugs would've eaten what and any DNA would've been destroyed by them and decomposition.

Caylee's 'death banded' hair WAS found in the trunk as were chemicals from human decomposition & extreme amounts of chloroform. The reason nothing else was found, was because at least one person, Cindy, CLEANED the car (and washed Casey's stinking pants that were in the car) before it was examined. I'm sure Casey did some cleanup too. Otherwise, even Casey's hair, fingerprints, etc.. SHOULD have been in/on the car. (btw...the prosecutor, Ashton, was the first one to introduce DNA evidence in a case, so he knows what he's talking about and understands the science.)

None of what you said is considered 'reasonable doubt' because it's not true.

[Edited 7/7/11 0:49am]

None of what you stated makes Casey a killer either. Which leaves 'reasonable doubt.'

The fact that DNA could have been destroyed does not mean one should assume it was initially present.

What chemicals from human decomposition? The smell? Was there chemical analysis of the smell to determine what it consisted of? I don't recall that.

Cleaning a car is pretty normal, so no criminal conduct inferred from an everyday activity.

MrSoulpower said:

RKJCNE said:

One thing I don't get is that the defence alleges that Anthony drowned... what happened after she drowned? Did they attempt to explain that at all?

That's a valid question, but irrelevant in this trial. Casey was charged with First Degree Murder. If prosecutors were interested in hearing what happened after Caylee drowned, they could have asked. But my guess is that they did not want to give more validation to this claim at all, which is why they ignored it.

I think what most people don't understand is that the purpose of this trial was not to solve the mystery of what happened to Caylee Anthony. The sole purpose of this trial was to find out if her mother is guilty of premeditated murder. The jury didn't think so - case closed.

I suppose, but it's frustrating that a verdict was given to a case when the full story of what happened couldn't be put together. The more time goers on and the more I think about this case I am just so unsure about this. I'm not interested in crucifiying Casey Anthony, her life is fucked from this point on.

Serena said:

lazycrockett said:

Cindy the wife of a police officer, just happens to go out to the trunk of the car and swipes to the point no DNA is found. Hmm shes either crazy bout cleaning it. N driving around a smelly car is typical in pretty much 45 states.

Hell the more i read the more i think is may have beenn an accident with a fucked up family. Cops are weird.

N wasnt that car in the parking space for like days before anyone claimed it?

[Edited 7/7/11 1:09am]

I'm sure Casey did some cleanup too before mom got to it. But you guys keep saying there wasn't any DNA found, there WAS one of Caylee's hairs found in the trunk. The body was bagged, thus not a lot of DNA is gonna get spread around in the trunk.

The car was parked at the Amscot for a couple of days, then sat in the tow yard for a few more, I can't remember the exact dates without looking them up though.

There are a lot of 'only ifs' in this case. The tow yard operator also said he smelled human decomposition, too bad he didn't call the cops before they picked up the car. If only the cop had investigated the 2nd call from the guy that found the remains, they wouldn't have been left with a skeleton.

Hell, Cindy/George even left the car windows open for days trying to get rid of the smell, human decomposition smells like NOTHING else, it wasn't just a 'smelly car'.

But none of that positively proves Caylee was in the car and that Casey put her there.

One of Caylee's hairs in the trunk. It was a car she'd been in before. Nothing unusual about that.

RKJCNE said:

MrSoulpower said:

That's a valid question, but irrelevant in this trial. Casey was charged with First Degree Murder. If prosecutors were interested in hearing what happened after Caylee drowned, they could have asked. But my guess is that they did not want to give more validation to this claim at all, which is why they ignored it.

I think what most people don't understand is that the purpose of this trial was not to solve the mystery of what happened to Caylee Anthony. The sole purpose of this trial was to find out if her mother is guilty of premeditated murder. The jury didn't think so - case closed.

I suppose, but it's frustrating that a verdict was given to a case when the full story of what happened couldn't be put together. The more time goers on and the more I think about this case I am just so unsure about this. I'm not interested in crucifiying Casey Anthony, her life is fucked from this point on.

The purpose of the trial, as earlier stated wasn't to determine what happened in the last day of Caylee's life.

It was to determine if her mother was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Looks like she will talk today or later this year.

MrSoulpower said:

RKJCNE said:

One thing I don't get is that the defence alleges that Anthony drowned... what happened after she drowned? Did they attempt to explain that at all?

That's a valid question, but irrelevant in this trial. Casey was charged with First Degree Murder. If prosecutors were interested in hearing what happened after Caylee drowned, they could have asked. But my guess is that they did not want to give more validation to this claim at all, which is why they ignored it.

I think what most people don't understand is that the purpose of this trial was not to solve the mystery of what happened to Caylee Anthony. The sole purpose of this trial was to find out if her mother is guilty of premeditated murder. The jury didn't think so - case closed.

Exactly who was the Prosecution supposed to ask? The Defense team are the ONLY ones who suddenly came up with that excuse in their Opening Statements. Casey even denied that possibility NUMEROUS times before and after she was in jail. They never put ONE person on the stand who testified to it, including babykiller.

Serena said:

MrSoulpower said:

That's a valid question, but irrelevant in this trial. Casey was charged with First Degree Murder. If prosecutors were interested in hearing what happened after Caylee drowned, they could have asked. But my guess is that they did not want to give more validation to this claim at all, which is why they ignored it.

I think what most people don't understand is that the purpose of this trial was not to solve the mystery of what happened to Caylee Anthony. The sole purpose of this trial was to find out if her mother is guilty of premeditated murder. The jury didn't think so - case closed.

Exactly who was the Prosecution supposed to ask? The Defense team are the ONLY ones who suddenly came up with that excuse in their Opening Statements. Casey even denied that possibility NUMEROUS times before and after she was in jail. They never put ONE person on the stand who testified to it, including babykiller.

What's the prosecution's theory of how Caylee died?

If the didn't have one, why have a trial?

SUPRMAN said:

RKJCNE said:

I suppose, but it's frustrating that a verdict was given to a case when the full story of what happened couldn't be put together. The more time goers on and the more I think about this case I am just so unsure about this. I'm not interested in crucifiying Casey Anthony, her life is fucked from this point on.

The purpose of the trial, as earlier stated wasn't to determine what happened in the last day of Caylee's life.

It was to determine if her mother was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Looks like she will talk today or later this year.

But shouldn't the story the defense put forward be put under severe scrutiny? Shouldn't they have demanded a timeline so the prosecution would have a chance to debunk it? Didn't the grandfather deny and involvement in the burial?

RKJCNE said:

MrSoulpower said:

That's a valid question, but irrelevant in this trial. Casey was charged with First Degree Murder. If prosecutors were interested in hearing what happened after Caylee drowned, they could have asked. But my guess is that they did not want to give more validation to this claim at all, which is why they ignored it.

I think what most people don't understand is that the purpose of this trial was not to solve the mystery of what happened to Caylee Anthony. The sole purpose of this trial was to find out if her mother is guilty of premeditated murder. The jury didn't think so - case closed.

I suppose, but it's frustrating that a verdict was given to a case when the full story of what happened couldn't be put together. The more time goers on and the more I think about this case I am just so unsure about this. I'm not interested in crucifiying Casey Anthony, her life is fucked from this point on.

I agree, it is frustrating .. people want to know. But it was not the jury's job to solve this mystery .. and it wasn't the jury's job to find a scapegoat and punish her just because public opinion and bloodthirst tells them to.

It looks like we'll never know .. and there are many unexplained deaths that occur every year.

MrSoulpower said:

Serena said:

That is part of the problem with their defense, the *only* person who said anything about drowning in court was Jose Baez and what he says is NOT evidence or testimony and the jury is NOT to consider it that way. They presented NO evidence of drowning, abuse by her father or brother, really nothing at all to back up their 'defense theory'. (there is an interesting sidebar transcript where the Judge is trying to understand just what their theory was since it kept changing and it affects what can be admitted)

btw...when the cops were first questioning her at the Universal lot, they asked her if there had maybe been an accident, drowning or anything else. She said NO.

[Edited 7/6/11 22:45pm]

Again, they didn't have to. The purpose of this trial was not to find out if Caylee drowned and how that happened, but to determine if her mother killed her with premeditation. And there is simply no evidence for that, no matter how many times you claim that there is (and fail to present such.)

Premed was only ONE of their choices, there were other charges available. Maybe you didn't watch the trial, but there was evidence of her premeditation and that's not 'my claim', but fact.

RKJCNE said:

SUPRMAN said:

The purpose of the trial, as earlier stated wasn't to determine what happened in the last day of Caylee's life.

It was to determine if her mother was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Looks like she will talk today or later this year.

But shouldn't the story the defense put forward be put under severe scrutiny? Shouldn't they have demanded a timeline so the prosecution would have a chance to debunk it? Didn't the grandfather deny and involvement in the burial?

It's the prosecution's job to prove their case, not to subject the defense to scrutiny. They can argue what the defense is saying all day, but that isn't setting forth the prosecution's case.

The prosecution cannot demand a timeline from the defense. It works the other way. The prosecution lays out its case and the defense debunks it. They can't make the defense come up with a timeline.

If the defense had offered a timeline of events, then the prosecution could have at it, but the defense never offered one.

[Edited 7/7/11 7:09am]

SUPRMAN said:

Serena said:

Exactly who was the Prosecution supposed to ask? The Defense team are the ONLY ones who suddenly came up with that excuse in their Opening Statements. Casey even denied that possibility NUMEROUS times before and after she was in jail. They never put ONE person on the stand who testified to it, including babykiller.

What's the prosecution's theory of how Caylee died?

If the didn't have one, why have a trial?

Exactly. They can't say for sure that she killer her, they don't know how she was killed and it's not even clear that Caylee's death was a homicide. Sure, the ME came to this conclusion ... but without opening the girl's skull during autopsy, so I don't know how she could come to that conclusion.

Serena said:

MrSoulpower said:

Again, they didn't have to. The purpose of this trial was not to find out if Caylee drowned and how that happened, but to determine if her mother killed her with premeditation. And there is simply no evidence for that, no matter how many times you claim that there is (and fail to present such.)

Premed was only ONE of their choices, there were other charges available. Maybe you didn't watch the trial, but there was evidence of her premeditation and that's not 'my claim', but fact.

Serena said:

MrSoulpower said:

Again, they didn't have to. The purpose of this trial was not to find out if Caylee drowned and how that happened, but to determine if her mother killed her with premeditation. And there is simply no evidence for that, no matter how many times you claim that there is (and fail to present such.)

Premed was only ONE of their choices, there were other charges available. Maybe you didn't watch the trial, but there was evidence of her premeditation and that's not 'my claim', but fact.

As I pointed out earlier, the prosecution failed to prove the elements needed for a felony conviction.

For any felony conviction other than lying.

I'm sure the jury would have convicted if the prosecution had done its job.

But the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime to convict Casey for murder.

The jury never had to deliberate the murder charges because the prosecution failed to meet the legal standard.

MrSoulpower said:

SUPRMAN said:

What's the prosecution's theory of how Caylee died?

If the didn't have one, why have a trial?

Exactly. They can't say for sure that she killer her, they don't know how she was killed and it's not even clear that Caylee's death was a homicide. Sure, the ME came to this conclusion ... but without opening the girl's skull during autopsy, so I don't know how she could come to that conclusion.

The medical examiner could have called the death inconclusive or suffocation based on the tape. But as the body had decomposed, it's not precise if the tape would have prevented her from breathing or merely crying out.

[EDITED]

http://www.latimes.com/ne...2241.story

MrSoulpower said:

Serena said:

I don't know why you think the jury knows more than anyone else, that just not true.

No, but the jury knows what the court believes is relevant to the case and allowed to be admitted as evidence. And this is all that matters. And the jury was no exposed to the media coverage of this case - as you were - which for the most part considered her guilty before the trial even began.

I really don't understand wha you believe makes you an expert in this case, even calling the jury "ignorant" and "lazy", when you did not have access to the same court files and you were not present during the deliberation process.

No offense, but you come off somewhat obsessed with this case. You were neither a juror, nor part of the prosecution. You were not a witness either, and going by your posts, you're not an expert of law. You are just a TV observer who believes she knows more than everyone else, the jury included.

I never said I was an expert in the case, but I am knowledgable about it. I watched some of the Jury Selection and since Day 1 of the trial, I have watched it live and actually read depositions and other discovery. I don't know how many of you have done the same, so I'm just trying to share info that you may not be aware of. I will say that I know more info than the jury, but I'm not saying that for any reason except that I had more info available to me, which will now be available to them too if they care enough to do some research.

I'm not 'obsessed' with it, just wanted to learn more since I hadn't followed the case closely after Caylee was killed. But what I do find puzzling, is when people who didn't watch every day or haven't gone through ALL of the evidence or listened to ALL of the testimony, come out and try and say what was or wasn't there...

SUPRMAN said:

Serena said:

Exactly who was the Prosecution supposed to ask? The Defense team are the ONLY ones who suddenly came up with that excuse in their Opening Statements. Casey even denied that possibility NUMEROUS times before and after she was in jail. They never put ONE person on the stand who testified to it, including babykiller.

What's the prosecution's theory of how Caylee died?

If the didn't have one, why have a trial?

You can watch the Prosecution's Opening Statements, it's available on WFTV and many other places.

Serena said:

SUPRMAN said:

What's the prosecution's theory of how Caylee died?

If the didn't have one, why have a trial?

You can watch the Prosecution's Opening Statements, it's available on WFTV and many other places.

I actually found their theory.

"Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends."

But they never tried to show Casey suffocated Caylee did they?

SUPRMAN said:

MrSoulpower said:

Exactly. They can't say for sure that she killer her, they don't know how she was killed and it's not even clear that Caylee's death was a homicide. Sure, the ME came to this conclusion ... but without opening the girl's skull during autopsy, so I don't know how she could come to that conclusion.

The medical examiner could have called the death inconclusive or suffocation based on the tape. But as the body had decomposed, it's not precise if the tape would have prevented her from breathing or merely crying out.

Completely agree. The ME's conclusion was a guess at best.

So the father denied both the prosecution and the defense's story than what the fuck is his story?

The more you look at this mess of a story the more he's gotta be involved in a big way.
Casey's mom is the one who was trying to figure things out, not him.
I agree with Juror number 3, he's gotta know the whole story too

I bet he almost got caught too which lead him to a suicidal state.

[Edited 7/7/11 7:37am]

MrSoulpower said:

SUPRMAN said:

What's the prosecution's theory of how Caylee died?

If the didn't have one, why have a trial?

Exactly. They can't say for sure that she killer her, they don't know how she was killed and it's not even clear that Caylee's death was a homicide. Sure, the ME came to this conclusion ... but without opening the girl's skull during autopsy, so I don't know how she could come to that conclusion.

You didn't answer my question about who they were supposed to ask. As for opening the skull, they didn't need to, there are other ways to examine it without cutting it open, which is an accepted practice especially with children's skulls since they're so delicate.

The skull was opened and then BROKEN by Spitz (defense's ME), who also found nothing of importance.

MrSoulpower said:

Serena said:

Premed was only ONE of their choices, there were other charges available. Maybe you didn't watch the trial, but there was evidence of her premeditation and that's not 'my claim', but fact.

Please show me this evidence.

Like I can explain to or show you 300+ pieces of evidence in this thread...it's all available to you, as it was to me.

Serena said:

I never said I was an expert in the case, but I am knowledgable about it. I watched some of the Jury Selection and since Day 1 of the trial, I have watched it live and actually read depositions and other discovery. I don't know how many of you have done the same, so I'm just trying to share info that you may not be aware of. I will say that I know more info than the jury, but I'm not saying that for any reason except that I had more info available to me, which will now be available to them too if they care enough to do some research.

I'm not sure about Florida, but here in Virginia, the jury has access to case records and files that the general public does not have access to, not even journalists like myself who cover the trial. Assuming that it's the same in Florida, the jury does have more access to relevant information than you, as someone who follow the trial on TV.

I'm not 'obsessed' with it, just wanted to learn more since I hadn't followed the case closely after Caylee was killed. But what I do find puzzling, is when people who didn't watch every day or haven't gone through ALL of the evidence or listened to ALL of the testimony, come out and try and say what was or wasn't there...

I came to my conclusion based on my experience as a crime/court reporter and my knowledge of the judicial system and how if works. I may not have watched everything, but I didn't have to in order to agree that the jury found Casey not guilty on the murder charges because prosecutors failed to provide the necessary evidence for a felony conviction. This is what many legal experts on TV said as well. You obviously believe that there was enough evidence for a guilty verdict, and I have asked you numerous times to provide such evidence ... but you have not. Referring to the prosecutors opening statement is not evidence. It's just a thesis.

Serena said:

MrSoulpower said:

Please show me this evidence.

Like I can explain to or show you 300+ pieces of evidence in this thread...it's all available to you, as it was to me.

I too have yet to see any evidence of premeditation.

If the prosecution suggested premeditation then they would have to have a theory on how the death occurred to show that it was premeditated.

No one showed how the child died, so what was premeditated?

SUPRMAN said:

Serena said:

You can watch the Prosecution's Opening Statements, it's available on WFTV and many other places.

I actually found their theory.

"Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends."

But they never tried to show Casey suffocated Caylee did they?

I think the duct tape being stuck to her hair and holding her mandible in place was proof of that.

Serena said:

MrSoulpower said:

Please show me this evidence.

Like I can explain to or show you 300+ pieces of evidence in this thread...it's all available to you, as it was to me.

This thread is going towards 11 pages, and you have spent much time and used a lot of bandwidth to show what an irresponsible person Casey us, how disfunctional her family is, who has lied about what, what a scumbag Casey's lawyer is, how ignorant the jury is, etc. None of this is relevant to the verdict, which is why I called it a soap opera. Why not use your time and energy instead to present at least some of the evidence you claim proves that Casey is guilty of killing her daughter? You don't have to show all 300+ pieces that you say exists. Pick the ten strongest pieces of evidence that prove beyond reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony murdered Caylee. I am absolutely willing to reconsider my position if you present some of this evidence. I have looked for it in newspaper stories and on TV, but haven't seen it. If you know something that everyone else is ignorant off (including the jury, as you claim), then please show it.

Serena said:

SUPRMAN said:

I actually found their theory.

"Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends."

But they never tried to show Casey suffocated Caylee did they?

I think the duct tape being stuck to her hair and holding her mandible in place was proof of that.

But is the duct tape enough? I don't think so, not when you can't place it over her mouth and nose.

It it were just over Caylee's mouth, that wouldn't suffocate her.

RKJCNE said:

So the father denied both the prosecution and the defense's story than what the fuck is his story?

The more you look at this mess of a story the more he's gotta be involved in a big way.
Casey's mom is the one who was trying to figure things out, not him.
I agree with Juror number 3, he's gotta know the whole story too

I bet he almost got caught too which lead him to a suicidal state.

[Edited 7/7/11 7:37am]

The father wasn't on trial, so he didn't need 'a story'. Casey even talks about what a wonderful father and grandfather he was on the jailhouse tapes. If anything, it's the opposite...Cindy may have known where the body was at some point and George may have too, but he hasn't lied the way Cindy has in various depositions and on the stand. The State could charge her with perjury, but they probably won't do that for various reasons.

Serena said:

SUPRMAN said:

I actually found their theory.

"Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends."

But they never tried to show Casey suffocated Caylee did they?

I think the duct tape being stuck to her hair and holding her mandible in place was proof of that.

Ok that's a start, now prove Caylee died of suffocation and that Casey put the tape on her mouth.

[Edited 7/7/11 7:49am]

Serena said:

SUPRMAN said:

I actually found their theory.

"Prosecutors contended Anthony, then 22, suffocated Caylee with duct tape because she was interfering with her desire to be with her boyfriend and party with her friends."

But they never tried to show Casey suffocated Caylee did they?

I think the duct tape being stuck to her hair and holding her mandible in place was proof of that.

No, it wasn't.

Where is the evidence that the duct tape was applied to Caylee's mouth before her death?

Where is the evidence that the duct tape caused Caylee's death?

Where is the evidence that Casey applied the duct tape on her daughter's face?

If you were a prosecutor, you'd fail, because you are not asking enough questions.

[Edited 7/7/11 8:44am]