• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Caylee Anthony and Lindbergh cases

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
JohnnyCockfight;1948758; said:
Didn't really follow the case, but from what I read, the state had solid circumstantial evidence, which is sufficient to convict upon, in addition to expert testimony. I think this will be looked upon as a poor jury decision.
Click to expand...

the thing is, the evidence showed that SOMEONE killed her, but didn't definitively show that Casey did it. so she got away with murder...
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;1948772; said:
the thing is, the evidence showed that SOMEONE killed her, but didn't definitively show that Casey did it. so she got away with murder...
Click to expand...

If a dead body is the only piece of relevant evidence in this case, then you are correct. If you consider the following circumstances that I can think of off the top of my head with little knowledge of the case: that Casey never reported her daughter missing, was out partying and enjoying life while her daughter was missing for more than a month, made up a fictitious Zanny the nanny who she accused of kidnapping her daughter up until a few weeks ago, the smell of rotten human remains in Casey's car trunk (for which expert testimony was put on regarding the source of the smell), then that evidence all points to Casey and only Casey. At least with regards to manslaughter, if not murder.
 
Upvote 0
JohnnyCockfight;1948789; said:
If a dead body is the only piece of relevant evidence in this case, then you are correct. If you consider the following circumstances that I can think of off the top of my head with little knowledge of the case: that Casey never reported her daughter missing, was out partying and enjoying life while her daughter was missing for more than a month, made up a fictitious Zanny the nanny who she accused of kidnapping her daughter up until a few weeks ago, the smell of rotten human remains in Casey's car trunk (for which expert testimony was put on regarding the source of the smell), then that evidence all points to Casey and only Casey. At least with regards to manslaughter, if not murder.
Click to expand...
Or, a sociopath who does not give a [Mark May] whether her daughter lived or died. A sociopath might go out on the town the day after their kid died of cancer. Reprehensible? Yeah. Illegal? No. So my problem is that I think she is clearly a sociopath with a broken empathy switch, but I do not think it shows that she killed her, although I might convict her of crimes of lying to police and desecration of a body. The computer searches for things like "broken neck" certainly could be signs of intent. But if the jury simply buys into the possibility that the area was searched and the body not found earlier, but was later dumped there after Casey was jailed, could be a "reasonable doubt". BARD is a tough ass standard. If she doped her kid up to go out, the overdose theory sounds like a more likely theory. The State was all over the map on its theory of the case, which helped her more than her marginally competent defense lawyer.
 
Upvote 0
Gator, good retort, but one that I think really only works for those predisposed to being a skeptic. How does the evidence of the stuff in the trunk and the expert testimony thereto point to Casey as merely being a sociopath? Why would a sociopath not want the police to find the body if she had nothing to do with the death? I don't think that claiming being sociopath relieves a person of responsibility or accountability across the board.

Gatorubet;1948804; said:
On the Plus side of things, maybe Nancy Grace will stroke out and croak upon hearing the news.
Click to expand...

I am sure it will have the unfortunate effect of boosting her ratings.
 
Upvote 0
JohnnyCockfight;1948810; said:
Gator, good retort, but one that I think really only works for those predisposed to being a skeptic. How does the evidence of the stuff in the trunk and the expert testimony thereto point to Casey as merely being a sociopath? Why would a sociopath not want the police to find the body if she had nothing to do with the death? I don't think that claiming being sociopath relieves a person of responsibility or accountability across the board.



I am sure it will have the unfortunate effect of boosting her ratings.
Click to expand...
That hag still has a show???
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1948803; said:
Or, a sociopath who does not give a [Mark May] whether her daughter lived or died. A sociopath might go out on the town the day after their kid died of cancer. Reprehensible? Yeah. Illegal? No. So my problem is that I think she is clearly a sociopath with a broken empathy switch, but I do not think it shows that she killed her, although I might convict her of crimes of lying to police and desecration of a body. The computer searches for things like "broken neck" certainly could be signs of intent. But if the jury simply buys into the possibility that the area was searched and the body not found earlier, but was later dumped there after Casey was jailed, could be a "reasonable doubt". BARD is a tough ass standard. If she doped her kid up to go out, the overdose theory sounds like a more likely theory. The State was all over the map on its theory of the case, which helped her more than her marginally competent defense lawyer.
Click to expand...

What about the air sample from the trunk that showed signs of chloroform and evidence of a decomposing body?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top