Is There Another Missing Baby Case Like Casey Anthony's?

[Ivan Seeking]

Wow, I thought she was going to hang for sure!

 

[turbo]

What about the duct tape? Is there any reason that a dead child (presumed drowning victim) should have duct-tape on her face? I have a problem with the jury in this one. This verdict does not pass the straight-face test for me. Someone killed that toddler IMO and someone covered it up.

 

[Char. Limit]

Who is Casey Anthony and why should I care?

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Oh great. There is going to be a circus in my state.

 

[dlgoff]

I was hoping that after the verdict, I'd quit hearing about it all the time. Guess I was wrong. :(

 

[leroyjenkens]

What about the duct tape? Is there any reason that a dead child (presumed drowning victim) should have duct-tape on her face? I have a problem with the jury in this one. This verdict does not pass the straight-face test for me. Someone killed that toddler IMO and someone covered it up.

Someone definitely killed her. No reason to put duct tape on the face of a child that's already dead.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They were discussing it on the radio earlier. Basically the evidence was all circumstantial and the defense seems to have been able to spin that into reasonable doubt, at least in the minds of the jurors. There's no question that some crime was commit, just whether or not it was her.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Someone definitely killed her. No reason to put duct tape on the face of a child that's already dead.

A common theory is that it was an accident and they disposed of the body in such a fashion hoping to take the heat of themselves and make it look like some sort of kidnapping.

 

[WhoWee]

They were discussing it on the radio earlier. Basically the evidence was all circumstantial and the defense seems to have been able to spin that into reasonable doubt, at least in the minds of the jurors. There's no question that some crime was commit, just whether or not it was her.

Reasonable doubt of who killed the child and when - maybe? But, it took 30 days for her to report the child missing, in the interim there is proof she was out partying, the mother called the police and said her car smelled like death, then the child is found in a swamp with duct tape about her mouth and head - (given this evidence) all the jury convicted her of was telling lies to the police - shame on the prosecution (again) - IMO.

 

[Ken Natton]

Who is Casey Anthony and why should I care?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13986356

 

[BobG]

Reasonable doubt of who killed the child and when - maybe? But, it took 30 days for her to report the child missing, in the interim there is proof she was out partying, the mother called the police and said her car smelled like death, then the child is found in a swamp with duct tape about her mouth and head - (given this evidence) all the jury convicted her of was telling lies to the police - shame on the prosecution (again) - IMO.

Taking a month to let anyone know the child was missing is the most damning 'evidence' that was presented. That just didn't make sense.

But, there was just about no actual physical evidence. There wasn't enough physical evidence to prove the cause of death, let alone who did it.

Common sense tells you she knew the child was dead, how the child died, and was involved somehow, but everything else is just speculation (as is the idea that Casey knew Caylee was dead, to be honest, but come on). And the lack of evidence provides a pretty good reason for hiding the fact the child was dead for as long as possible - the older the evidence, the better the chance it would have disappeared.

I think it's hard to prove a case when you don't have physical evidence.

(By the way - have you considered just adding "IMO" to your signature line. )

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

She never said that she would spend the rest of her life looking for the real killer. That's pretty suspicious to me.

 

[Evo]

It's just a travesty. Definitely one of those times that justice was not served.

 

[KingNothing]

Not surprised by the result, and I don't blame the jury at all. There are hundreds of cases every year where someone gets away with murder because of unsubstantial evidence. Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better to let a true criminal go free than to convict an innocent person. Even though justice was not served, the jury did as it was supposed to.

 

[Evo]

Not surprised by the result, and I don't blame the jury at all. There are hundreds of cases every year where someone gets away with murder because of unsubstantial evidence. Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better to let a true criminal go free than to convict an innocent person.

Having followed the trial, I do blame the jury, there was enough to convict, IMO.

What mother doesn't go nuts if their child that age is missing for even an hour? I'd go nuts after 10 minutes.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

She never said that she would spend the rest of her life looking for the real killer. That's pretty suspicious to me.

Definitely. Now OJ has dedicated himself to doing just that for the two people he didn't kill. Right now he's following up at a Nevada prison which he cleverly got himself into. The real killer is no doubt in there somewhere.

 

[WhoWee]

(By the way - have you considered just adding "IMO" to your signature line. )

It keeps me out of the penalty box.

 

[KingNothing]

Having followed the trial, I do blame the jury, there was enough to convict, IMO.

What mother doesn't go nuts if their child that age is missing for even an hour?

I didn't follow that closely, I just had heard that the evidence was underwhelming. Could you perhaps give us some info on what evidence was presented? I would appreciate hearing it from you more than a news website.

 

[Evo]

I didn't follow that closely, I just had heard that the evidence was underwhelming. Could you perhaps give us some info on what evidence was presented? I would appreciate hearing it from you more than a news website.

No, it would be better to list the actual evidence. I'd add bias as a mother. The evidence was rather overwhelming, especially the testimony from her father and his suicide note. She didn't report her daughter as missing. After her daughter was dead and no one knew it, she was out partying.

If she wasn't solely responsible for her daughters death, she was part of it and the coverup. That alone would put her behind bars for years.

 

[Antiphon]

People get convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence all the time. You don't even need to have the corpse to do it.

I have lost all faith in our present jury system. We either need professional jurors or we need to lower the standards of evidence to prove guilt.

I would rather send 10 innocent people to jail in order convict just one Casey Anthony. There will be more dead children at the hands of sociopaths like her who make the calculation that they'll only get a few years and no chair if they're caught.

I repeat; the jury system does not work and should be replaced by a jury of "engineers"; analytical, educated, well-paid professional jurors who rule based on common sense.

If I were the sole juror she'd be heading for the electric chair. Why? Because any fool can see she's a pathological liar and sociopath and that she deliberately killed her child. Any other conclusion flies in the face of all reason.

 

[KingNothing]

I would rather send 10 innocent people to jail in order convict just one Casey Anthony.

I think you are hyperbolizing, but if not, that's pretty awful.

 

[Point Conception]

What happened here is that saps, like the jurors in the o.j. simpson trial,
are not just in L.A.

And outside of that one in ten comment , I completely agree with Antiphon.

 

[Evo]

A juror was just on tv and said that they voted not guilty because there was no definite cause of death given, not that she wasn't guilty of murder.

WHAT?

 

[WhoWee]

A juror was just on tv and said that they voted not guilty because there was no definite cause of death given, not that she wasn't guilty of murder.

WHAT?

Did they ever prove when the baby died, how the baby died, where the baby died, who was present when the baby died, who knew the baby died, who put duct tape and bags on the baby, who put the baby in the car, when duct tape was placed on the baby, when the baby was taken to the swamp, who transported the baby to the swamp, who placed the baby in the swamp, who cleaned the car, and who had a real motive?

Too many unknowns - coupled with evidence that was not peer-reviewed - the prosecution dropped the ball.

 

[Antiphon]

I think you are hyperbolizing, but if not, that's pretty awful.

I do not hyperbolize this one. It's awful. But that's what these incompetent juries have done to me.

Edit: the inexorable logic is this: juries are failing. Killers must be kept off the street. Therefore I will accept a larger error rate to keep them off the street.

Maybe Casey Anthony will get a job in a nursing home tending your loved ones.

No thanks.

 

[Evo]

Did they ever prove when the baby died, how the baby died, where the baby died, who was present when the baby died, who knew the baby died, who put duct tape and bags on the baby, who put the baby in the car, when duct tape was placed on the baby, when the baby was taken to the swamp, who transported the baby to the swamp, who placed the baby in the swamp, who cleaned the car, and who had a real motive?

Too many unknowns - coupled with evidence that was not peer-reviewed - the prosecution dropped the ball.

Yeah, the only evidence was that the dead baby had been in her car until it started stinking and the grandmother complained about the stench.

 

[ideasrule]

No, it would be better to list the actual evidence. I'd add bias as a mother. The evidence was rather overwhelming, especially the testimony from her father and his suicide note. She didn't report her daughter as missing. After her daughter was dead and no one knew it, she was out partying.

The father never saw the body; he just inferred that it existed because he thought Casey's car smelt like human decomposition. I also don't see why the father's suicide note gives any evidence that's more reliable than his court testimony. All we know is that he wrote this note before the day he claimed that he attempted suicide. Even if we believe that he did want to commit suicide, nothing was forcing him to be honest in the note, and certainly nothing was forcing him to write down his darkest secrets.

As for Casey's behavior, I agree that it's despicable and irresponsible, but that doesn't make her a murderer. Not all humans behave the same way. Some people, like me, behave in completely bizarre and puzzling ways, but that doesn't make them criminals.

 

[Antiphon]

Yeah, the only evidence was that the dead baby had been in her car until it started stinking and the grandmother complained about the stench.

Seriously. This is the very essence of an open-and-shut case. Now this creature having been found innocent will become rich off of it.

Oh yea. No son-of-Sam law to block any book deals. Not only has this incompetent jury turned loose a baby killer, but they've handed her a license to get rich off of it.

Excuse me, I'm going to go puke now.

 

[ideasrule]

For a summary of the evidence, see here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/05/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html

I think the real injustice in this case is the trial by television that's been going on for 3 years. Rewind to any time before today's verdict. A presumptively innocent woman was the top celebrity in America, with half the population knowing exactly what she looked like and assuming, contrary to the legal protections of every democratic country, that she was guilty. Even at this stage, before any verdict was reached, her job prospects and ability to function as a normal member of society had all but disappeared.

Today, the jury found that she was not guilty. She's not just presumptively innocent of murder; she's legally innocent. Yet half of America is still assuming she's guilty and crying out for her blood. No matter how you put it, it isn't justice for a legally innocent woman to have her life destroyed by public opinion, especially public opinion formed by a sensationalist media that has decided to focus on this one case.

Let's suppose that the jury made a mistake, and that Casey is in fact guilty. Every year, many people in the US are tried and acquitted for murder due to lack of solid physical evidence. Why is public opinion not lynching these people? How is it justice for public opinion to focus on the one case that the media has decided to sensationalize, but not the many other cases that the media wasn't interested in? The punishment that society dishes out to offenders shouldn't depend on whether the media happened to pick up on the case.

If I were the dictator of the country, I would ban all news coverage of criminal arrests and trials until after a verdict has been reached. Many reporters in Europe follow this guideline voluntarily, even though they're not legally obliged to, and I think it definitely improves the fairness of the justice system.

 

[hypatia]

After hearing Dr. Werner Spitz{ my Grad school mentor} testify, I knew they would have to find her not guilty. The autopsy was not up to standards, very haphazard, in a case of this type.
The jury made the correct choice, given the evidence and followed the letter of law to perfection.
The personal Mother in me, feels differently. She reeks of guilt.