Casey Anthony Trial

[jcindaville]

I'm no attorney, and I'm not Wayne

[tech fan]

I was in a world-wide contol group that was testing a radical new version of Luria's CAS. As the administators at Vanderbilt University explained, the rating scale was extremely different. It topped out above 200. Luria's object was to refine the percentile parameters.

I don't know how the new method eventually fared. I'm sure that, in the end, the results were deemed no more decisive than any other standardized test.

U had me at world-wide lol you.must be.one smart cookie lol.

[Udog]

U had me at world-wide lol you.must be.one smart cookie lol.

Hell, those numbers have never really meant anything, tech. The smartest person in the world can have a bad day and look like a moron.

I was recruited by a friend in the psychology department and was in it strictly for the money.

At least I was smart enough not to bet against the NL's pitching last night.

[tech fan]

Hell, those numbers have never really meant anything, tech. The smartest person in the world can have a bad day and look like a moron.

I was recruited by a friend in the psychology department and was in it strictly for the money.

At least I was smart enough not to bet against the NL's pitching last night.

I was too lol and took the under so wonder if that bumps up my iq a little bit

[Udog]

I was too lol and took the under so wonder if that bumps up my iq a little bit

Damn right it does! Way to go, Professor!

[Udog]

The jury based their decision on poor causality analysis, as did you in concluding the not guilty verdict was proper.

Again, I can't speak for any jurors. I based my opinion on the fact that premeditation was never proven. I don't know of any state that lets stand a verdict of "guilty: murder one" without proving intent to kill.

Casey's defense attorney, Jose Baez, lied to the jury in presenting unfounded explanations to confuse the facts of the case, and successfully put Casey's father on trial while taking Casey off trial. The fact that Caylee even died was practically forgotten by the jury, and suspicion deflected from Casey to George Anthony. Baez lies were accepted by the jury as evidential testimony, while the real facts in the case were set aside by the jury.

Have you ever known a defense attorney who couldn't prove his client's innocence to do any differently? That's just standard trial practice. It's sleazy but that's the way it is. And, obviously, it works.

The jury had tunnel vision focusing on medical pathological evidence as to the cause of death, ignoring other facts as immaterial - thought disorder based on overdiscrimination.

1. The jury focused on cause of death and ignored anything but forensic evidence establishing the exact cause of death.

I think they were more concerned with the lack of sufficient forensic evidence. The remains were too far gone to determine strangulation or suffocation. There were no broken bones or markings of bone by a blade. The examiner himself testified he found no chloroform, or any other foreign substances, in Caylee's remains.

This is a denial of much evidence that murder, or neglectful actions resulting in killing Caylee, occurred. It was ignored that Casey's presented all kinds of lies and concealment strategies to hide Caylee's absence and death, for a full month. Caylee's skeleton was found hidden in a swampy area where duct tape had been covering her mouth and nose area - a very rare duct tape found in the household.

The prosecution stepped in it when they called the duct tape "rare". There's no such thing and too many people know that. It's all the same. It just comes in different grades. There are brand names that are region-specific but all duct tape is made from the same raw materials in the same way.

How many of the neighboring houses were checked for that brand of tape?

In no way do I think no one could be blamed. I think the jury did the right thing on first degree murder only, due to the inability to prove intent. I do not understand how she got off the manslaughter charge.

2. There was no DNA, fingerprint, or witness evidence linking Casey to Caylee's death. However, Casey was the last to see Caylee alive and all available evidence leads to Casey as the cause of Caylee's death, and no one else.

Where does all that evidence show that Casey killed her intentionally and not accidentally? You know, Club could very well have nailed it when he wrote "Manslaughter-She used chloroform and duct tape to keep Caylee quiet in the trunk while she went in and partied at the bar, came out, child was dead. Didn't mean to, but she killed her."

3. Casey was a good mother that could never harm Caylee. This is the overgeneralization form of thought disorder since narcissists can often be good, sociable and kind in general, while concealing their selfishness and lack of empathy for others, until circumstances bring out their true nature (which they still try to conceal from others). Ted Bundy was popular and well regarded while engaging in early killing. Only after his compulsion to kill grew to dominate his existence did he quit socializing and devote him self exclusively to serial killing.

Purely from a personality analysis point of view, Casey was the only family capable of the murder and disposal of her daughter. Her totally narcissistic personality, not shared by any other family member, is a prerequisite for an instrumental (not for defense) murder. She has no empathy for anyone but herself, and is totally self-centered. Others have value for her only in what they can do to please her, otherwise they are disposal waste.


Casey is sociable and outgoing since she has strong needs for attention from others, but her socialization is based on feeding her narcissism rather than based on love for others. She uses others to fulfill these affiliation needs, and instrumentally provides love only as needed to get what she wants. For Casey, Caylee was a toy, a baby doll to play "Mother" with rather than someone to unselfishly love. Casey was a good and non-abusive mother to Caylee as long as Caylee meet Casey's needs more than Caylee frustrated Casey's needs. Caylee provided Casey a useful role in Casey's society where otherwise Casey had no role other than party girl. Caylee was a very bright and adorable child who everyone loved. Casey's two male room-mates spent some time with Caylee and jokingly alluded to enjoying interactions with Caylee more than interactions with Casey. In photos of the two together, Casey seems to be competing with Caylee as to who was the cutest in smiling and posing for the camera in competition with Caylee. Casey's parents were extremely doting toward Caylee. Casey's removal of Caylee insured that Casey reigned as center of attention.

When Caylee became too much of a burden for Casey, her plaything was readily disposed of like garbage, with no remorse whatsoever. Only a complete narcissist can do this. Casey killed Caylee not out of anger, like an aggressive sociopath would, but out of self-gain based in narcissism - Caylee was crimping Casey's party lifestyle and impeding Casey's sexual exploits with men that did not want a child in the way. A narcissist uses others and can readily trample over them if others get in the way. In the trial, Casey threw her father under the bus in claiming he had sexually abused her, nodding "no" in disagreement with him when her father testified that he never abused Casey. After the trial, Casey's mother tried to see Casey in jail but was cast away by Casey, in spite of the mother's perjury in defending Casey in the trial. Casey dumped her mother and father just as she had previously dumped Caylee in the swamp. Casey is incapable of love except instrumentally to use others for her own needs. When others are no longer needed, or the price of using them becomes too high, Casey readily rejects ot gets rid of them.

Casey was the last person alone with Caylee. Casey showed no concern over her daughter's disappearance, did nothing to try to find her. Casey's parents were deeply concerned and desperately tried to find Caylee.

Casey was a party girl prior to to Caylee's death, and didn't even know who the father of Caylee was. However, Casey celebrated even more, and continually, after Caylee was missing, obviously glad to get rid of the burden's Caylee imposed on her. Free at last from Caylee, Casey danced and partied, engaged in sexual exploits, and got her "Life is Beautiful" tattoo. This was true narcissistic pleasure pursuit and not a manic reaction to grief - Casey is only capable of grief for her self when her personal needs are frustrated. Casey has never shown any concern or grief for Caylee's death, except for show to manipulate others.

No one else around Caylee, but Casey, could have killed Caylee, based on psychological analysis.

The pathologist who consulted for the defense found evidence that after Caylee's death her body was stored in one position then later moved. Evidence that Caylee's dead body had been in Casey's car trunk (before being moved and dumped in a swampy area) is Caylee's hair in the trunk, chloroform in the air of the trunk, and the pronounced stench of death (noted by several witnesses) in the trunk.

Baez confused and bamboozled a stupid jury that was vulnerable to his deceitful defense. The jury accepted his totally unfounded lies as valid evidence, while ignoring the facts of the case.

Very interesting specualtion but I see still see no proof of premeditated murder.

Jury members demonstrated deficits in cause-effect analysis, as they dismissed facts in trying to take emotion out of the case.

There used to be a name for people who let their emotions decide these things. They were called lynch mobs.


The saddest thing about all this is that the prosecution removed any chance of ever convicting her for murder when they charged her with first degree on an incomplete body of evidence.

She strikes me as the kind that will not be able to remain silent about what she's done. At some point, she'll get drunk/high and say something. It won't hurt her, though, as she's already been tried and acquitted. Double jeopardy laws disallow trying her again.

When she eventually makes her slip, they won't even be able to charge her with manslaughter for the same reason.

Well, that's all I'm going to say about it. This is a very depressing matter. Whether Casey was found guilty of murder or not, little Caylee is just as dead.

[Art]

I was in a world-wide contol group that was testing a radical new version of Luria's CA'S. As the administrators at Vanderbilt University explained, the rating scale was extremely different. It topped out above 200. Luria's object was to refine the percentile parameters.

I don't know how the new method eventually fared. I'm sure that, in the end, the results were deemed no more decisive than any other standardized test.

How high an IQ of 173 is depends entirely on the mean and standard deviation, as derived from the normative sample, assuming sample is represented of the universe to which it is applied.

IQs above two standard deviations above the mean represent the top two 2 percent of a normative sample, and IQs within this group can not be discriminated from each other (they are all well within the standard error of measurement).

IQ is a limited measure of adaptive intelligence. Good judgment, taking into account an evaluation of actual/predicted, cost/benefit to self/others, may or may not be exhibited by those with a high IQ, yet is essential for vocational and interpersonal success.

[Art]

Again, I can't speak for any jurors. I based my opinion on the fact that premeditation was never proven. I don't know of any state that lets stand a verdict of "guilty: murder one" without proving intent to kill.


Where does all that evidence show that Casey killed her intentionally and not accidentally? You know, Club could very well have nailed it when he wrote "Manslaughter-She used chloroform and duct tape to keep Caylee quiet in the trunk while she went in and partied at the bar, came out, child was dead. Didn't mean to, but she killed her."

Very interesting specualtion but I see still see no proof of premeditated murder.


The saddest thing about all this is that the prosecution removed any chance of ever convicting her for murder when they charged her with first degree on an incomplete body of evidence.

Negligent/accidental homicide, without premediation, was an option for the jury that they failed to exercise. You, like the jury, focus on premediation and excluded other verdict options, and premeditation proof was not in needed to convict of negligent/accidental homcide - the correct verdict in this case.

The prosecution stepped in it when they called the duct tape "rare". There's no such thing and too many people know that. It's all the same. It just comes in different grades. There are brand names that are region-specific but all duct tape is made from the same raw materials in the same way.

How many of the neighboring houses were checked for that brand of tape?

Not true. This was an unusual brand, with unusual markings on the tape, from medical supply. Likely Susan got it from the hospital she worked in - not sold in local stores. None of the neghbors would have such tape. Where else could the tape come from except the Anthony household? How many hospital staff took such tape home from the hospital besides Susan, and which of these staff killed Caylee and left the tape with her dead body?

[tech fan]

Not true. This was an unusual brand, with unusual markings on the tape, from medical supply. Likely Susan got it from the hospital she worked in - not sold in local stores. None of the neghbors would have such tape. Where else could the tape come from except the Anthony household? How many hospital staff took such tape home from the hospital besides Susan, and which of these staff killed Caylee and left the tape with her dead body?[/QUOTE]


i know u meant cindy instead of susan.Some people here will jump on any mistake

[Art]

Not true. This was an unusual brand, with unusual markings on the tape, from medical supply. Likely Susan got it from the hospital she worked in - not sold in local stores. None of the neighbors would have such tape. Where else could the tape come from except the Anthony household? How many hospital staff took such tape home from the hospital besides Susan, and which of these staff killed Caylee and left the tape with her dead body?

i know u meant cindy instead of susan.Some people here will jump on any mistake [/QUOTE]

Yes, thanks for the correction. I meant Cindy Anthony and not Susan Anthony. I need to rewire that neuronal memory tract.

Susan Anthony was the feminist hero from the past - the government even initiated a Susan Anthony coin years ago, which are probably quite valuable now.

[Udog]

Negligent/accidental homicide, without premediation, was an option for the jury that they failed to exercise. You, like the jury, focus on premediation and excluded other verdict options, and premeditation proof was not in needed to convict of negligent/accidental homcide - the correct verdict in this case.

Art, I have stated no less than three times, in this thread, that I don't understand how she was let off the manslaughter charge. I would certainly have voted to convict on any lesser murder charge or manslaughter.

Why do I agree with the jury on first degree murder? Florida law dictates it.

Florida Statute 782.04 defines First Degree Murder as a killing that is "perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being." The Florida Criminal Jury Instructions explains that a defendant is not guilty of First Degree Murder unless the State of Florida proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was a premeditated murder, a "killing after consciously deciding to do so." The decision to kill must be proven to be "present at the time of the killing", but that the "law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass."


These jury instructions were copied directly from the Florida Criminal Code and are to be read verbatum, by the judge, to the jury in all first degree murder trials:

3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

It is recommended that you use this instruction to define reasonable doubt during voir dire. State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1996).
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1997.




3.10 RULES FOR DELIBERATION

These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses [and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence] and these instructions.

3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.

4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.

When the jury is to be involved in a penalty phase, omit the second sentence of paragraph 5.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law. It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.

Give 7 if applicable.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about [his] [her] testimony.

8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in these instructions.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1995 and September 2005.




3.11 CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION

Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that decision in any way. Please disregard anything I may have said or done that made you think I preferred one verdict over another.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981.


The prosecution did a great job showing that premeditation was certainly possible. They did not, however, prove it was present at the time of the killing.

At the bottom of all this is my belief that it is far better to errantly free a hundred murderers than it is to convict one innocent person. We must adhere to these rules to lessen the chances of wrongful conviction.

Assumption and supposition have no place in this process.

[Udog]

Not true. This was an unusual brand, with unusual markings on the tape, from medical supply. Likely Susan got it from the hospital she worked in - not sold in local stores. None of the neghbors would have such tape. Where else could the tape come from except the Anthony household? How many hospital staff took such tape home from the hospital besides Susan, and which of these staff killed Caylee and left the tape with her dead body?

I just spoke to a friend who is a regional manager for Omnicare, the world's largest medical supply company. She says no medical supplier has ever had duct tape in it's catalog. She says the attorney was referring to a surgical tape that comes in many sizes, one of which is close to the width and roll size of duct tape. She says it was probably deemed "rare" because it is found in medical facilities only.

I wonder if the prosecutor might have missed a chance to strengthen his case by not referring to the tape as surgical tape.

[frankb03]

Software designer admits his program was flawed. He contacted the prosecutors. They ignored him. This explains why in their closing arguments the state never mentioned the searches which was a huge part of their case.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us...y.html?_r=1&hp

[frankb03]

We can put to rest that chloroform ever played a role. It was a figment of the state's imagination. There was only 1 search how to make chloroform not 84. The computer user, Casey, was on the page for less than a minute before returning to myspace.

After 3 searches of the home there was never any evidence of chloroform or chemicals to make chloroform.

Chloroform is difficult to make and can be very dangerous to make. It can potentially kill the person making the chloroform.

It's obvious the state knew they had Exculpatory evidence and withheld the evidence from the defense. It doesn't surprise me one iota they withheld this evidence. Why do the prosecutors accept this verdict with class and dignity but Joe Public won't accept it?

[Art]

We can put to rest that chloroform ever played a role. It was a figment of the state's imagination. There was only 1 search how to make chloroform not 84. The computer user, Casey, was on the page for less than a minute before returning to myspace.

After 3 searches of the home there was never any evidence of chloroform or chemicals to make chloroform.

Chloroform is difficult to make and can be very dangerous to make. It can potentially kill the person making the chloroform.

It's obvious the state knew they had Exculpatory evidence and withheld the evidence from the defense. It doesn't surprise me one iota they withheld this evidence. Why do the prosecutors accept this verdict with class and dignity but Joe Public won't accept it?

One search is all takes - how can you say chloroform played no role because there was only one search? Above normal traces of chloroform were detected in the trunk of Casey's car.

The evidence that the jury did not get:

1. Casey tried to give Caylee up for adoption - was making arrangements when Casey's mother, Cindy Anthony, stepped in and said this would never be allowed.

2. Just before Caylee disappeared, Cindy had a heated argument with Casey about her excessive partying and lying.

3. When people asked Casey where Caylee was, Casey said she was with her "Xanny Nanny" - meaning she was tranquilized to sleep so Casey could get out alone.

4. Casey talked to jail mates about using chloroform to keep Caylee quiet at times

5. Casey had smirked and giggled in viewing TV showing where the police were searching for Caylee, but when she saw the police were searching in the area where Caylee was later found, Casey turned red, hyperventilated, and reacted in panic, realizing they would find Caylee where Casey had dumped her.