UPDATE: Since this post, a few things have come to light.
- After reading the comments at The JB Mission, it appears that Baez brought up the issue of false or misleading evidence with Judge Perry right before Linda Burdick gave her closing. She basically tells him to pound sand.
- The State Attorney’s Office issued a press release today saying that since Baez knew about the problem (apparently from his own deduction, not State’s correction) that they did nothing wrong.
It appears the Orange County Sheriff’s Office intentionally suppressed exculpatory evidence that directly contradicted the State Attorney’s theory of premeditated murder in their attempt to have Casey convicted of First Degree Murder.
Please read:
- The Hinky Meter: Caylee Anthony case: 84 Visits or Not?…and why it matters
- CacheBack Creator and State Expert Witness Issues Press Release Revealing Government Misconduct
Law Enforcement’s Duty to Disclose Favorable Evidence
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process. Subsequently, in Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the Court made clear that all impeachment evidence falls within the Brady rule.
Finally, in Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the United States Supreme Court not only reaffirmed that both exculpatory and impeachment evidence fall within the Brady rule. The Court also reiterated “… that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.”
But my question is how do we know the State Attorney’s Office didn’t know that the computer search was flawed. If they did, they not only had a duty to disclose it to the defense, but a duty to disclose it to the court, and more than likely a duty to correct it in front of the jury.
This Ain’t the State’s First Rodeo Either
And let’s not forget, this is not the first case ASA Jeff Ashton was involved in where exculpatory evidence was suppressed. some of you may remember my post in Casey Anthony: Insufficient Funds (Part Uno), where I explained about a trial conducted by the Elected Public Defender Robert Wesley:
—-
Mr. Wesley realized not long after the guilt phase of the trial that the dastardly prosecutor Jeff Ashton “suppressed favorable evidence.” See State v. Huggins, 788 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2001). And because of this dastardly act, theChief Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Belvin Perry, granted Mr. Huggins request for a new trial, noting:
[I]t is not the Court’s intent or wish to punish society or the family of Carla Larson. This Court has a sworn obligation to follow the law. The principles of Brady v. Maryland are well known to all lawyers who practice criminal law and remedies for its violation are well known. While a defendant’s right to a fair trial is of the utmost importance in our system of justice, particularly when the ultimate punishment may be imposed, the Court is mindful of the heavy burden it places on Carla Larson’s family as well as society. But in the end, society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair.
An Ironic Twist
The irony of all ironies is that it may be Casey Anthony who has the best law suit to bring after her acquittal.
A law suit against the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office for violating her civil rights by suppressing favorable evidence so they could rely on flawed evidence to try and convict her of First Degree Murder.
You assume what you have no right to assume, Anon. You have no idea what I delight in or what my motivation is. It saddens me to know that these people hold the lives of other in their hand, have the power of life and death. It also saddens me that you and so many other take their carelessness so lightly. I’m sure you’d change your mind if it were you in her shoes.
One more comment on the teeth and bone collection and then I must move on. Pg 3607 shows that Dec 13, 1 tooth was collected from lane 4, found by Robin Maynard along with pelvis, lane 6. She isn’t mentioned in Jenny Welsh’s daily report listing all those that found bones that day and what lane they worked, pg 3427-8. She was in charge of sifting and bug collection so I’m not sure how she got the other half of the pelvis. That seems a little large to be unnoticed when scooping up dirt to sift. But, my main concern is, if they scooped up the vegetation under the skull when they collected it, how did they miss 5 teeth or not find them right after collecting the items in Area A. Perhaps they weren’t right with the skull and bags? How do they know for sure the tooth was found in lane 4 or where it was in lane 4, when she is sifting buckets from different lanes? The skull was on the NW edge of are A in lane 4. The ilium or pelvis was found in area F, 10-15′ diagonally SE from the skull.
Anyway, now we have 5 teeth found, 13 they claim are in the jaws, one stuck in the upper skull, one missing.
While Jenny Welsh appears to be very diligent and care a lot about critical attention to detail I think many of LE and even the examiners office needs some heavy duty training on the handling of evidence. Bone 46 is a good example, showing why. Pg 3639 shows the evidence sheet filled out by Delgado on Dec. 18, a bone which became bone 46, see pg 3488, collected in lane 5. But it is listed as the right 2nd metatarsal from area D in the anthropological report, which is lane 6. See page 6471, pdf pg 32 in the autopsy, anthropological report. Maynard took the bone to the ME’s office, Shultz identified it as human so she took it back to Suburban, supposedly put it back where it was found then photographed it. This is professional standard procedure for handling evidence? How could they possibly know exactly how and where it originally laid? This is probably how it switched lanes and areas from one piece of paperwork to another. For all I know, seeing this type of mistake, several times now, the mandible could have been in lane 10 before they repositioned it to take pictures. I’m sure someone will jump all over me for that statement but read for yourself. They removed a bone then brought it back to photograph it. Oh, and Hanson, from the ME’s office, thought a bone was human but Schultz, back at the office, said it wasn’t. Hanson was on scene to help.
Night all.
This coming from a person who can’t decide what imaginary friend you want to be at any given moment.
Well Dr. Anonymous,
Whether we pondered any theory really doesn’t matter. At least we knew Ashton and Burdick didn’t have the evidence to prove murder unlike you who thinks because a person is a liar, she’s a murderer.
At least we didn’t pretend to KNOW Casey Anthony and characterize her psyche as if we were trained behavioral scientist.
At least we didn’t believe every word coming from the media.
At least we KNEW there never was a heart sticker on the duct tape.
Should I go on?
Jbm,
I know I’m not Anon, but several of your commentators at various points did pretend to know Casey Anthony.
And you KNOW that there was never a heart sticker on the duct tape? You were there? You actually saw/handled the evidence? You were there when Caylee died?
You call your and your commentators’ varied theories pondering, and all opposing theories assumptions/speculation…What’s the difference?
So what are you basing your pondering theories on if you are saying the prosecutors have no evidence, the evidence is questionable,investigators questonable, medical examiners questionable. Throw it all out and what are you left with to ponder….Nothing.
So regardless of evidence or no evidence, if you weren’t there how can you KNOW what was or wasn’t there?
Kim Possible,
No, I wasn’t there when Caylee’s body was found but I do know how to read a FBI report which clearly states that no heart sticker or residue was found on the duct tape.
Sorry Kimpossible that is not speculation that is fact. Obviously you weren’t paying attention when Lorie Gottesman of the FBI was on the stand in Casey’s trial.
BTW, not to pat myself on the back, but I’ve been saying this ever since I read the documents a year before the trial began.
And I must say, I expected a lot more from you Kim Possible. Your argument sounds childish.
Oh yes and while I’m in the mood, here’s the real report on Casey Anthony’s psyche not some speculative fodder coming from someone calling herself Anonymous.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20110716/ARTICLES/110719773?p=1&tc=pg
Now had Dr Krop visited my site, I would have gladly posted his findings.
Seriously, Anonymous…..is that the best you got? Wow.
Take care of yourself.
B-Man & Anonymous, BRAVO, my dear comrades! BRAVO! Though you do know, don’t you, that you can’t talk sense to a turnip?
XXOOXX
Zuben,
Quote from your post. “Anyway, now we have 5 teeth found, 13 they claim are in the jaws, one stuck in the upper skull, one missing.”
So you have the 20 teeth. Dr. Schultz stated the teeth found at the site were maxilla teeth. I can only reiterate that I believe any issue with the teeth would have been immediately apparent to Dr. Spitz, he would not overlook that type of discrepancy. . He would have been quick to this point out, further substaintiating his “shoddy” autopsy opinion. He also checked the skull for any signs of trama according to his testimony. I can’t help you with the mandible on the photo, because what I believe I view is different than your view.
While I have previously read the documents you referred to, I have not gone back to scrutinize them and would have to re-read to see what you referred to. It would not surprise me if there where mistakes, there were many people involved and they are all human just like you and me. I’m sure you have made mistakes in both job and your personal life, no matter how careful you intended to be. These people on the scene where dealing with hundreds of pieces of possible evidence. Not only did they have to photograph, grid and mark off the areas, they had to clear the area of plant growth and trash. They had to document all the trash because they didn’t know what was evidence. They searched for small bones on their hands and knees, had to photograph, identify, and log those as well. They worked multiple days and recovered almost all of Caylee’s bones. I think they did very well considering the terrain they had to work with and the number of tiny bones that where scattered. So while is your right to defend the jury, I too will defend this recovery team.
—————————————————————–
While there are people who will continue to nit-pick at the evidence or those like me who question the jury verdict, one fact remains, this case began with Casey Anthony and her failure to report whatever it is that happened to her child. It doesn’t matter if you continue to defend her character/behavior or scrutinize it, the investigation started with her in conjunction with the 31 days because she specifically gave the number of days she last saw her daughter and placed herself as the last person with Caylee. She purposely mislead investigators with false trails and false information, which had to be investigated. Her behavior and unwillingness to be honest is part of the circumstances surrounding the search for her child. Looking at the big picture, circumstances can and often is evidence.
It doesn’t matter what time the death occured, if Casey had help, didn’t have help, it was murder, manslaughter, accident, or something in between. It is a fact that Casey Anthony places herself as the last person with Caylee, in the 911 call, handwritten statement, police interviews, and jail house tapes. Casey Anthony is the biological, uncontested residential parent who is the legally responsible person concerning the condition of her child.
It does not matter if she was there, wasn’t there, under what unknown scenerio you want to consider, at some point that day she knew her child was “missing”/possibly dead. A person lies to cover something up, most of the time it is one’s own actions or inactons. It doesn’t matter if she had been covering for someone else or her own actions/inactions, Casey’s legal responsibility is to her child.
The jury does not need to believe the defense nor the prosecution, which is what some have said. They did not need to know how, when, where Caylee died to determine that the mother neglected her legal duty to her child, because infact Cayless was eventually found to be dead. No one knows if Caylee was even alive or dead when placed in the plastic bags.
I have still never heard or seen one reasonable argument as to what point in time of discovery, that Casey would no longer be legally responsible or culpable for her own child.
While Casey skirted her responsibility to her child, she allowed her child’s body(dead or alive?) (either by someone else’s hands or her own). to be discarded like trash, desecrated and disarticulated by animals, insects and weather in a swampy wooded grave.
You can blame the media attention concerning this story, first the publicity was welcomed to look for a missing child. Then the media continued to latch on to this story because of a callous, unemotional mother who continually lied to investigators and a family who wanted to believe that their daughter/sister was involved in any possibility other than the intentional disapearance or death of her own child. Not to mention the Florida Sunshine Laws which were in effect prior to this case, not because of this case.
The anger directed at Casey is because of Casey. She publicly created and perpetuated a charade of Caylee missing, openly doning her Caylee Missing
t-shits and/or buttons with her approving lawyer standing by. Then through her lawyer at trial contends Caylee died of an accident, that Caylele was never missing but dead June 16th 2008. Imagine how those people who reported seeing a live Caylee feel, knowing that some of those people were investigated, had to be questioned and the child (Caylee look a like) had to be view or questioned. Imagine the investigators having to go through thousands of tips that were coming in to the tip line, to the Anthonys, to the investigators, and to the sheriffs office.
Shifting the blame to someone else is not going to absolve Casey of the legal responsibility she, as the mother, had to her child. The manner of her actions establish culpable negligence. This is my opinion.
Kimpossible: What law is it that you speak of? How do you neglect a dead child? and what law is it that is broken when you neglect a dead person? Specifically, what law are you talking about when you legal responsiblility? I am serious. How can you be legally responsible for a dead person? I think you are putting the cart before the horse as though a crime had been committed before Caylee died? What crime is that? Sincerley and with respect. I am confused as to what you are talking about?
Kim, Amen, girl friend! It doesn’t matter how it was that Caylee got to be where she was! Truer words have never been spoken! Common sense and a barrage of hard evidence – some NOT so circumstantial – all point to but one perpetrator of the crime. Casey. I won’t rehash the facts with any great detail. We all know what they are; but:
By her own admission Casey was the last person to have seen Caylee alive, as there was no nanny for her to have left Caylee with.
By her own admission she was the last person in possession of the car. She admitted it stunk of something dead. Squirrels she said, though no evidence of any squirrel material was found on the car that NO ONE else was in possession of during the time she was complaining about the smell, just prior to and by her own admission, abandoning the car at Amscot.
Little else matters, really. Her own admission that the car stunk of something dead, coupled with the “expert” testimony of those familiar with the smell of human decomp was enough. It’s obvious that the jury couldn’t have cared less about the forensics lest they wouldn’t have been so quick to dismiss such HARD evidence as the napkins covered with adipocere (grave wax).
Forget about the stain on the carpet that Lee couldn’t account for but to say that it wasn’t there when he owned the car. Common sense dictates that Casey had ample time to try to clean up whatever mess was in the trunk prior to having abandoned it, why else would her slacks have smelled like death which prompted Cindy to conceal that evidence? Of course it can be said that if she was so determined to clean up the trunk why would she have left anything in it? Smoke screens and mirrors.
Much of Casey’s time is unaccounted for. I’m not willing to give any possible baby killer who admitted to so much, and against whom so much can be established, the benefit of the doubt. I can’t, having been there and done that. Many of those who took part in the search for Caylee are familiar to me. I have worked with them, and will do so again. I know the frustration felt by many for their inability to do a thorough search of the area in which Caylee was found because it was under water! First rule, consider your own safety first. You’re of no help to anyone if you get hurt and are put out of commission.
Some (JB) don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, and no matter how hard pressed they are to pass themselves off as know-it-alls so that most are convinced. It’s an insult to the knowledge some of us possess born of experience, and experience tells me that it hardly matters which bone was found in which lane and what teeth were located where, considering the circumstances surrounding the disposal of Caylee and the environmental factors involved over the course of many long and even turbulent months.
Zuben, you’re a dear. Do me a favor. Stop concerning yourself with where the bones were found or which tooth was where. Concern yourself with HOW it was that Caylee came to be so scattered. Familiarize yourself with the activities of the carnivorous. Do you know which parts of a dead and rotting being the carnivorous attack first? Do you know how they go about feeding on the dead, or how they’d gain access to such a tiny being as Caylee encased in three layers of baggage?
I don’t know how it was that a tooth became lodged in Caylee’s skull. I do know that all things considered a number of things could have happened that caused it to be so, from the jostling of the animals that were feeding on her to what remained of her when the wind and the rain and the flooding occurred. Flood water can easily lift a two ton truck, at the very least. A young child’s tooth, loosened during the process of decomposition, as teeth are loosened and most fall out, could easily have been lifted up into her skull. Understand, Zuben, I can’t read, watch, hear this stuff without envisioning it all. I’ve been on searches. I’ve seen decomposing bodies or what’s left of them after a mere few days and weeks left out in the wild, as well as I’ve witnessed my share of autopsies. Have you? How about you, JB? Have you been there, done that? Doubtful. You go on and on about the docs that offer but half of all involved.
It seems to me that many assume the packaging remained intact, and well enough to have stuck up out of the flood waters well enough to have been seen. Wrong. Rule of thumb: DO NOT LOOK FOR ANYTHING WHOLE. After six months all anyone was going to find was pieces and parts, torn asunder and scattered from here to kingdom come. Experience tells me that within days, if not hours, of Caylee being dumped in that swamp her packaging was torn to shreds, reducing her to near ground level, and her limbs were ripped from the rest of her body, her buttocks torn and gnawed upon long before the wind started blowing and the rains of TP Faye began to fall.
I’m sick to death of the scoffers who dare to say that had Caylee’s remains been in that swamp (had someone not placed her there at some later date) someone would have seen something! Such scoffers haven’t a clue. LE went to great lengths to not only sift in order to find every last bit hoping for a clue as to an actual cause of death, in reconstructing Caylee, but also collected even the smallest scrap of black plastic that may have been a part of the packaging. How many of you skipped over all of that in the docs, or thought it meaningless that so much plastic was being tagged, hummm?
Evidence. Forget about the search for chloroform. So many are using that now like some sort of smoke screen meant to hide the other known facts that support premeditation, such as the computer searches for NECK BREAKING. But then, it could have been Cindy who searched for neck breaking thinking she might break Casey’s for the horrid mother to Caylee and daughter to herself that Casey was. Funny how some just skip over all of the times Cindy is known to have accused Casey of being unfit and so much so that Cindy threatened to take Caylee from her! This we learned from Casey, remember? And how many remember what George had to say about how he and Cindy were the sole care givers of Caylee, and what a burden it was sometimes, for Cindy? Anyone?
Know though that I do not attribute any such search to anyone other than Casey who was searching for the means to be rid of her daughter, once and for all, in the true form of a typical sociopath who’d deny the object of their hatred a chance at happiness in the care of someone else. “I don’t want you but no one else can have you either!” How many battered women and children have died at the hands of such?
I can just hear it now! “Oh, but, Autumn, the prosecution presented witness after witness who said that Casey was a good mother!” Fools. What known child abuser beats their children in the presence of those they are trying to impress, and especially this lot of new found friends, most of whom didn’t know Casey but for a handful of months! Oh, but Jesse said … Jesse said what? That Casey didn’t want Caylee? Casey considered giving Caylee to Kio Marie? Casey broke up with Jesse because Jesse cared more about Caylee than he cared about her? According to Casey, and we’ve heard this time and again, George and Cindy cared more about Caylee than they did about her. That’s almost laughable now considering the fact that George and Cindy sent justice for Caylee up the river, truth be told.
Truth be told there was one witness who didn’t know Casey well enough to have been impressed with her and who saw past the pretense. A lone two year old child left to answer the door to strangers, who was left to entertain the strangers alone while her mommy busied herself in the bedroom with her boyfriend. Neglected Caylee who would have been left out on a balcony alone, and who was expected to tie her shoelaces alone. That witness who got it right because she’d yet to be so beguiled by Casey and her sociopathic ability to beguile the naive. But this witness wasn’t alone. George said it. Cindy said it. Casey herself said it. “Because I’m a vindictive bitch!” “All anyone cares about is Caylee! What about ME?”
Well, she’s free now, and the Misisionites can all go around boasting the accomplishment of a bumbling, incompetent and even lying defense, regardless of the fact that justice was not served here. Not for Casey, inasmuch as it is that true justice would have seen her behind bars for a good long time, and most certainly not for Caylee.
Revel in it, Missionites, but consider this, she got away with it, and in so doing she’s going to be further empowered, and that isn’t something to revel in, that’s something to fear.
Autumn: I will save you the time, but your post is full of assumptions that were never proven. It appears to be a fabricated story. Especially the part about hard evidence. There was no hard evidence. I will just for now respect RH space here, but if you would like to go over each point, I will be happy to. I see a lot of wishful thinking, a lot of assumptions of things as facts..12 jurors heard the entire prosecution case and found her not guilty. Are you thinking the prosecution did a terrible job of presenting the facts? Or do you think something is wrong with all 12 jurors?
I agree NTS,
Autumn just spewed 3 years of gripe all in one long comment which I certainly wouldn’t waste my time to read. Heard it all before ad nauseum as THEY say. What do they want a cookie for longest comment ever? Anyone could do that? But can they look at this case through the eyes of the law??? No they can not and the bottom line.
“Do they want a cookie for the longest comment ever?”
I don’t know JB……but I’m compelled to ask a similar question of your oddly cult-like mission “followers”:
“Do they want to give Casey a gold-star for the being the biggest liar in the history of the Florida courts??” or what about:
“Do they want to give Casey a ‘high-five’ for successfully hiding the corpse of her baby girl long enough for skeletonization to occur??”
Jessica,
My site only seems like a cult to you because you’re in the majority but as proven in a court of law, the majority is not always right.
I’m not offering Casey any rewards for her behavior but I don’t want to see her die in prison for an alleged crime that wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt either.
Excellent and well-spoken post, Autumn!!
It was alright but a little boring since we’ve heard this ad nausem for 3 years now. It’s beginning to sound a little robotic, don’t you think so Jessica?
Revel in it, Missionites, but consider this, she got away with it and in so doing she’s going to be further empowered and that isn’t something to revel in, that’s something to fear.
Well said, Autumn, but unfortunately she and ‘OTHERS’ will be further empowered and get away with it.
No Deanna Hancock,
I’m reveling in the fact that I live in America where you just can’t put someone in prison without evidence. There was NO evidence. Rah, rah, for the Red, White and Blue!
I’d rather see one guilty person go free than see one innocent person spend ONE DAY in prison. That’s the way I roll.
*Sigh.
Which part of “circumstantial evidence IS STILL EVIDENCE” don’t you get, yet, humm?
As many of you have stated, no one knows, how, when or where Caylee died, but we do know she did in fact die. Casey places herself as the last person with Caylee 31 days prior, so she knows that something has happened to Caylee at that point in time. Every parent has legal responsibilities to their child. Failure to so can be deemed neglect There does not have to be a history of abuse, it can be one single instance. While no one can state for certain how Caylee died, the point that Casey discovered/or caused the condition of her daughter, she had a legal obligation to her child to seek medical assistance. Casey is a lay person and cannot legally deem her daughter dead(we are not living in a time of unattainable medical assistance), neither is the grandfather or any of Casey’s friends if any of them had been present. You do not know if Caylee was indeed dead when placed in the plastic bags. Some children who appear unresponsive may infact not be clinically dead. But without any medical assistance the child will die. That is why you see the EMT’s continually working on a person until the doctor calls time of death. Only a doctor/ME issues death certificate.
Even if you want to believe Casey was not there when it happened, came back and learned of it(which there is absolutely no proof). She is still obligated to report it, she cannot take someone elses word (a lay person)that her child is dead. Even if the body was taken away and she did not see it, she cannot just take someone’s word and do nothing. She must, at the very least call and report what was told to her and that her child may be in danger, if not dead.
Because the death was covered up, the neglience could also have occured prior to the incident but because of the cover-up I’m not even considering that factor. It is the fact that Casey became aware of the incident(whatever scenerio you want) involving her child and did nothing. Caylee may still have died or deemed dead by a physician, but by seeking help she would have fulfilled her obligation to her child.
As stated in Florida Statute 827 (criminal law), “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 the 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; or
2.
A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical injury or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.
Even when our children/teens are not in our presence, Parents can be held responsible for their child’s actions such as vandalism,theft or other accidents, because it may be the result of our inaction to properly supervise the child. For example, if I allowed my teenager to ride his dirtbike down the highway to go to his friends house less than a mile away and while on the highway he causes an accident which resulted in his death and the other driver’s death. I could infact be charged with vehicular homicide/manslaughter in my son’s death and driver’s death. For one, it is against the law to ride a dirtbike on the highway and because I did not require my son to follow the law, I would be held responsible.
I sorry but I cannot explain any better than that. I’ve attempted to explain it several times with other examples and if you do not comprehend what I am trying to convey, then you will never understand. This is just my opinion.
Well Kimpossible, at least you tried to explain it. The explanation does not fit the incident though. She certainly is guilty of not reporting her child dead. What crime is that? and what statute? She did not let her child drive down a hiway on a dirt bike, so if she did something that was neglectful, then what is it? Where is the crime and if one existed, then why didn’t the State charge her with it? No one even knows if Kc was home when Caylee died. The state did not establish that. First the incident happens, second someone reports it. In that order, none other. I think you are trying to use everything that did or did not happen after the incident to prove what happened before the incident. It won’t work.
So, a persons cell phone is recorded with pings to be in that location. That does not prove that the person was in that location. Only that the cell phone was in that location. That is the only thing jurors had to go by to put Kc near that location that day. Hardly enough evidence to prove manslaughter. In essence, the state did not prove that part of their theory. IMO
Both the state and defense established through their evidence she was in the vicinity of Caylee at the time of “the incident”. Casey places herself as last person with the child. This is a fact at trial. That is also undesputed at trial or anywhere else. You are assuming a fact that was not in evidence nor disputed. I could assume that she was in Jackson County or on the moon but there is nothing to support those assumptions. Apparently you are going to continue to assume she was not there even though she tells the 911 operator, writes her own statement, tells law enforcement, and reiterates everything in her jail house videos as her being the last person with Caylee. Because she was the last person with Casey, then she was there.
You do not know at the time of the incident if Caylee actually died at that moment. Why? Because no medical assistance was called upon. The defense said George held her lifeless body(which I don’t personally believe), lifeless and unresponsive does not automatically make someone dead. The child could have been unresponsive in their scenerio or any scenerio. Casey is not a medical doctor to deem someone dead, neither is her father nor her friends. So how is it that you know Caylee was actually dead, when a doctor did not deem her dead at that point or with in a short period after? How is it that you actually know? Caylee died at what point?
At the exact time of incident or in the plastic bag? It’s the failure to obtain medical help for the child. You don’t know if the child could have been saved, do you?
I am not using what happened prior to the incident, I specifically said I was not considering that. What happened after the incident is important. You said first the incident, second someone reports it, in that order. Exactly. Second never came until a month later.
Even as I’ve said before, under your theory she came home and discovers that ther was an incident with Caylee is missing or dead. Someone would have to tell her because you can’t leave a 2 yr old unattended, that would also be neglect. So even if someone told her child was dead & they took care of it, it would still be negligent for the parent to not report it because she would not know for a fact her child is dead, the other person could have given her child away. If someone is telling her something, she does not know if it is a fact or not. She would not know if her child is in danger or not. But doing nothing would knowingly put the child in danger.
If I went to my child’s babysitter to pick up my child. I was then told my child died, they couldn’t reach me so they decided not to call 911 but instead get rid of the body. I can’t just take their word as fact and decide for myself not to call 911. I can’t say well you didn’t report anything so I won’t either. Because they didn’t report the incident does not absolve me of my legal parental obligations. I would not know for a fact if my child was dead, wondering the streets alone, sold, or kidnapped by someone. A parent’s legal duty is to their child’s well being. At that point you would not know what condition your child is or is not in.
I assuming that when Casey thought or believed her daughter was dead (as opposed to a doctor deeming her deceased), that is what relieved her of her legal responsibilities to her child?
A police officer arriving on the scene of an accident may believe that the occupant is dead, but that does not relieve him of his duty to call for medical assistance. An officer cannot legally deem the person dead because he believes it to be the case and just leave the scene or dump the body. The unresponsive person may not be dead, only appear to be that way. That would be negligent. A parent has that same legal obligation to their child, because the parent is imposed with the duty, responsibility and obligation.
So keep believing that you KNOW Caylee was legally dead right after the incident and keep believing that you absolutely KNOW Caylee was legally dead when put in the plastic bags. I don’t know, so I just hope and want to believe because it is easier to accept. It’s because of Casey’s inacton towards Caylee, no one knows at what point after “the incident” Caylee actually died. One minute? 10 minutes? half hour? The one thing we do know, is Caylee was not even afforded that possibility by her own mother.
The one thing we do agree on is, I will cling to my opinion and you will cling to yours. We both share that right.
You say both the state and defense establish that she was in the area at the time of the incident. I will have to agree to disagree with you on that one. I do not think that was established at all. Only the search and the discovery was established and not the incident. She could have came home from the gas station and asked where Caylee is as far as I know. It was not established and we do not know any of it as fact.
As far as what she said and wrote on July 15th and 16th, it doesn’t matter because the defense opening statements trumped all of that.
I don’t know of the legal responsiblilities when someone believes their child to be dead. Certainly her Father is former investigator and why would she not believe him? I agree that she is guilty of not calling for help, but I do not think a dead person needs help and do not know what crime she would be charged with. Leaving the scene of an accident?
I do not assume that she was not there, I only acknowledge that it was not established that she was there. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know and apparently the state does not know either because they did not even cover it. I do not know at the time if Caylee actually died at that moment. True. The child could have been alive if we want to speculate that, but it is only speculation, there is no proof. Its all guess work.
I think your scenario where it would still be neglegent would not work in court because you would need to know weather the child was dead or alive. I don’t think you can charge neglect after someone is dead and that brings me to my point which is that we do not know. The state had 3 years to figure out what happened. They did not investigate thoroughly of the day of the incident. They did not have GA or CA or La cars investigated, they had few phone records. They left the jury hanging with lots of questions, which will always equal reasonable doubt.
The fact is, we do not know what happened after 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if we do not know, then she is not guilty.
It is my opinion if they would have done a thorough investigation in the first place, then they would not have charged her with murder.
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this case. I have always said that the state will have to focus on the evidence leading up to the incident and the evidence of the incident itself. The last 3 years, folks have been focusing on things that happened after the incident. Jurors would want to know what happened to cause the incident and what actually happened at the incident. The State had very little evidence of anything before June 16th. They couldn’t even tell us what day she died. They had 3 years and prolly 200 staff to focus on the 2 weeks leading up to the incident and incident day itself. They did not have everyones phone records, they did not check CA or GA or LA automobiles. They ventured out into disproving her lies rather than investigating what actually happened. They need protocols established. They need to follow their own rules. You start with the next of kin and then you move out from there. How hard is it? They had 3 years and it is what it is…….IMO
I am starting a 12 step program for you people who cannot get off the Casey Anthony on your own. We understand at CAA (Casey Anthony Anonymous, we can help you. Casey Anthony can be harder to quit than booze or crack or crack & booze with a little pot once in a while but it can be done with minimum withdrawl syptoms if you just let us help you.
When I heard Baez state that Casey Anthony won’t be giving any interviews for three months because she “will be seeking professional treatment for serious mental issues instead” I was LOL. First of all the kind of professional treatment Casey needs cannot be accomplished in a few months. She needs a few years at least, if not a lifetime of therapy.
Jose Baez, her spokesperson turned manger/pimp, said Casey is seeking treatment because:
1. “She now realizes that her questionable behavior when Caylee went missing was the result of obvious mental health issues.”
2. “She still needs help to deal with the trauma of losing Caylee” and
3. “She spent 3 years in jail in solitary confinement facing murder charges that ‘It messed with her head.’”
I think the therapy issue is being used for delaying her interviews and buying time so that Casey won’t be as hated as she is now. This is Baez’ way of trying to soften her image. It is blatantly transparent how disingenuous this “therapy claim” is. Anyway, Casey seems to be imprisoned wherever she is hiding out.
José has taken on the role of Casey’s PR agent which is unseemly as well as unethical, IMO. I see it as nothing more than another strategic move/damage control so that they both can cash in on the “big” money deals. Baez knows that the winds of public opinion can change very quickly.
This is part of Baez’ plan to try to get her ‘victim’ status into the public’s eye. Baez is trying desperately to rehab his “prized possession’s” marketability, but doesn’t get that the death of a 2 year old, either purposefully or ‘accidentally’, will not ever sit well with the public. Never. He never should have gone there. And Geraldo can invest all he wants in this defense team and client and get the exclusive interview but “if it smells like decomposition, it is decomposition”, and that isn’t going to change.
Question for Baez: How can Caylee have ‘drowned’ in the pool and at the same time ‘go missing’?? Which is it? Just shows us the defense team and Casey cannot keep up with their lies.
In my opinion Casey is receiving the finest acting lessons money can buy in preparing her for her best performance yet.
This whole question of Casey being a good mom was not answered in my mind at all !! We all heard that Cindy & George threatened many times to take custody of Caylee – does this show Casey as a good mom ?? These friends who testified should have been questioned on exactly how many times they saw Caylee. Like JA said it is easy to play and have some fun when the child is happy but that is not all there is to being a good mom. She didnt support Caylee in any way when it came to her food, her diapers, her clothes. George & Cindy knew the true ways of how Casey was or wasnt being cared for by her mom. Lee said Casey told him that her mother called her an unfit mom many times but George & Cindy didnt want her to get the death penalty so they werent about to be truthful about why they felt Casey wasnt a good mom . They were the only ones that knew the truth. We had grandma`s comment that Casey hated her mom more than she loved Caylee. I think that says a lot !!
Well Fran, it was the State who provided perhaps 10 witnesses, not sure because I lost count, in any case each and everyone of them all agreed, Casey was a good mother. Now if George said differently, I would consider the source.
These friends were all single, it is easy enough to play all cutesy with caylee for an hour in front of them. I wish the Prosecutors would have pointed out that all their opinions didnt shed a true answer on whether casey was a good mom