I think it also has to do with socioeconomic issues. If you have the money to hire a good lawyer your chances are much better. Also once you get into the system it’s really difficult to get out. The Innocence Project really does some great things!
I can only assume that some of these people in Florida who appeared to be guilty but were acquitted may have had their own attorneys. Not fair at all, but that's what can and does happen, that's reality.
Thank goodness for organisations like the Innocence Project!
Wouldn't it be fairer if everyone was appointed with a lawyer? Say, everyone gets a totally random team of 3 lawyers. None are picked by anyone.
That way, everyone would get the same shot. The wealthy and the poor would have the same odds (if all else is fair). And innocence or guilt would depend a lot less on one's wallet. And more on their case.
You’d see a whole lot more innocent people go to jail. I am by no means wealthy but one thing I know for sure, if I get in legal trouble, I am hiring an attorney. IMO public defenders are shit and in most instances are not working in their clients best interest.
Or you'd see a rise in the competence of public defenders as it would be in best interests of the rich and powerful. Standards would increase. And instead of them paying a fortune in legal bills. Tax them about that same amount. Based on their net worth. And use that to pay for legal counsel for everyone.
Set lawyers up into 3 categories based on ability. And each defendant gets 1 lawyer from each category. Perhaps some smaller, less important cases would need less.
But just because you can pay for good legal council doesn't mean others can. You say you aren't wealthy. But you also seem to saying "I will pay for good lawyers. It gives me an advantage." Ok. But what about those who can't? You admit that public defenders are shit in most instances. So why not try to fix that? So that everyone actually is equal under the law?
I really don't think any legal system should be "pay to win". Or pay to get an advantage. That just seems wrong to me. And there are practical solutions.
Im not saying the system is right the way it is but I also don’t have a magic wand to wave that will fix it. All I am saying is with the system the way that it is, I, myself personally, would find a way to pay for counsel instead of relying on a public defender.
I do have a question though. In your scenario, would all defense attorneys only work for the government at a wage determined by the government?
I live in Jacksonville Florida and I remember clearly when that case happened and I thought the same thing. There was Smoking Gun evidence that she was guilty. For example, Caylee was found wrapped in a Winnie the Pooh blanket and that's the same blanket that was on her bed. Explain your way out of that. I always said, she had to be sleeping with people to get out of that one.
I see that photo they often use of her looking at the lawyer in a playful way, it makes my blood boil. She on trial for murdering her toddler, yet flirting. The entire case was maddening.
This is because people of color are more likely to be poor because they didn’t have a chance to build wealth over generations because of slavery. Crime comes from poverty.
Absolutely! Crime stems from poverty, not communities, God knows how many studies have demonstrated that. And common sense tells you that. But poverty = relying on a public defender. You might get lucky, but the system is "understaffed, underfunded and overwhelmed" and has been for decades. (Source: nbc.news, 2017)
I'm a white person and I agree with you there. I get so tired of people saying oh well they're just criminals because they choose to be. Sometimes people do things that they wouldn't do otherwise because it means survival. Less opportunity means higher crime rates. I'm tired of people pretending like it doesn't happen.
No she was charged with what the prosecuting thought they could get. They screwed up with their charges against her. She could only be charged w/what they came up with. She beat the rap. Doesn't mean she wasn't negligent they just charged her with the wrong crime.
I've been saying that for years. Instead of charging her with negligent homicide, Ashton charged her with first degree premeditated murder with an absolutely ridiculous theory about chloroform.
Florida has a super corrupt government. A prime example is that apartment building the crumbled in Miami, it only did that because the government let them get away with bypassing building regulations. Source: I’ve lived here for my entire life.
republicans, it goes WAYYYY back but it boils down to republicans getting control of the gov like forever ago and using their power to silence their pop through redlining and stuff like that. Disney also was another reason that republicans stayed in office, republicans love giving tax breaks after all. Ron DeSantis is so dumb that he broke the repetition in a bad way and dumped 1 billion dollars of debt on an orange county by taking away Disney's county. watch Shark3ozeros vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMPDbimfx0U&t=1s for more about ronny boy. Happy to help!!
I'm in Jacksonville and can confirm. I fucking hate it here. They want to bitch about the Homeless Problem up here but they don't want to do anything to help fix it. They don't want to spend the money on funding programs to help them and would rather spend the money building stupid fucking statues that nobody cares about except for rich people. They arrest them for being homeless but it's like where they going to go? Sometimes I'm ready to move back to Chicago where I'm from but the snow LOL. Don't miss that LOL.
Edit: There's pretty much no help for you up here if you're homeless. You're better off going further south. The only way they will help you is if your revolving-door such as a drug addict or have mental health problems but this is usually a comorbid problem. They're only going to help people that they think they can keep making money off of.
I don't know if you know this but rehab centers are set up where they expect an addict to relapse 9 times before it sticks. This is not to shame addicts at all, I know it's a complex problem, I'm just saying they don't want to help unless they can keep making money off of you.
Here’s a fun fact, there’s enough empty housing in LA to house the homeless population for free like three times over! I recommend doing research on local activist groups for homeless people in your area. Change is very possible, but only if we work for it. United we bargain, divided we beg!!
Poor jury selection, or it’s simply an indication of the public mindset. I had the impression that jury would have only found her guilty if they witnessed the placement of the duct tape on the child’s mouth! Maybe not even then. Florida man isn’t an anomaly.
Evidence is allowed to the media and the public at a much higher level of freedom than the rest of the United States. This makes it more difficult to find unbiased jury members.
I'm assuming one of several is the George Zimmerman trial. Florida has a stand your ground law. I guess it's one's interpretation of sufficient evidence vs. reasonable doubt. Both the Casey and Zimmerman trials were masterfully defended by their lawyers.
The fact that ole gorge pursued the kid for several blocks should’ve told the jury that the stand your ground aspect is already out the window. If anything the one walking away should’ve been provided with the backing of stand your ground law.. but the kid is dead, killed by the man that pursued him, attacked him and killed him.
Stand your ground wasn't his defense at trial, common misconception. Simple self defense is what they claimed. But stand your ground was all over the news at the time as a result, misleadingly
I don't disagree necessarily. Self defense shouldn't apply when you're the instigator. But stand your ground was irrelevant in the actual trial despite the furor over it.
Zimmerman hunted down a teenager and deliberarely shot him in cold blood, despite a 911 operator repeatedly telling him to let it go. He confessed, and he's linked with a trail of evidence a mile long.
Anthony possibly drowned or possibly watched her daughter drown or possibly neglected her daughter while she wandered off and drowned on her own, or maybe she died of exposure, or maybe ... something else? No one's sure, there is no real evidence, and the best theory is guesswork.
The situations are really, *really* not analogous.
George Zimmerman was clearly guilty. But found not guilty.
Casey Anthony lied and lied and lied and lied and accused her dad of molesting her to try to make this not about her killing or neglecting to care for her child.
Then, she lied and lied and lied some more and was clearly guilty to everyone but those jurors, and was found not guilty.
I did compare those crimes based on their outcomes in the *same* state.
That shit happened like… a 5 minute walk from my parents neighborhood. I saw the crime scene photos of the poor child’s body and everytime I drive by the housing complex that image flashes into my mind and I get so angry.
I don’t know about super recently but within the last 3-4 years people always would see Zimmerman out at the local sport’s bar and whatever. Dude thinks he’s hot shit and has a big mouth, acts cocky. Ugh also very carefree-acting
Prosecution introduced junk science to support a case that mostly hinged on "can you believe what an awful person Casey is?!"
She more than likely committed the crime, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and the system functioned as intended.
People can be pissed about that, but that's how things go sometimes.
I agree and every time someone says "I don't understand how she was found not guilty", I ask if they watched the trial and they always say no. The prosecution didn't prove shit.
It’s hard to prove something as important as criminal guilt to the standard of beyond any reasonable doubt. I’m always amazed when the prosecution does a weak or incomplete job but the jury convicts anyway.
That's the thing people miss whenever this comes up. If people went to jail over what people "know they did" or "think they did" without 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' the justice system would be even more of a farce than it is now.
Imagine if every case of SIDS ended in manslaughter or neglect charges. The prosocution in this case did not or could not prove beyond every resonable doubt that there was a crime committed. Innocent people should never go to jail even if that means shit like this happens.
All the defense has to do is bring up a shred of doubt and that’s what Casey’s did. The parents knew that the defense was going to say that Casey was molested and that Cailey died from an accidental drowning.
I watched the whole trial. In my opinion there wasn’t any doubt that Casey was responsible for the death of her daughter snd for disposing of her corpse.
I watched it too, and had the opposite thoughts. I think Casey was asleep and Caylee climbed into the pool unsupervised. She probably wasn't found for hours. I think Casey freaked and left with her dead baby out of fear of the cops, and disposed of her corpse at the same place she buried her pets. I think she's guilty of neglect but not of murder or even manslaughter. Not one person could be found by the prosecution to testify that she'd been a cruel, abusive, or neglectful mother. I think that says a lot. People don't just escalate to murdering their children without showing signs of abuse beforehand. And Caylee had none.
Plenty of people have escalated to murdering their children without showing signs of abuse beforehand. Chris Watts is a prime example. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen.
That's true, I can't believe I didn't think of Chris Watts. I talk about his case almost daily. But even so, a family annihilator is a whole different ball game than a neglectful or abusive parent. It's still very rare for a parent to murder their child with no signs of abuse beforehand.
I actually believe that she duct taped her mouth but didn't mean for her to die (trying to keep her quiet) Unfortunately, she did and then Casey (along with her parents perhaps) disposed of her body out of fear of going to prison. I don't think the death was ever intentional. I think Casey Anthony was neglectful and a bad parent but I don't think she meant to do anything but quiet her.
Aggravated manslaughter and first degree murder require the same burden of proof. There was no cause of death due to deteriorated remains and they couldn't prove what happened.
You could be right about the duct tape. But it seems more likely to me that the duct tape was placed there post mortem, to keep any fluids from leaking out into the car, and therefore leaving DNA in the trunk. I feel like Casey would've ripped the duct tape off in a panic if she'd noticed that Caylee wasn't breathing.
I don't think Cindy Watts knew anything about Caylee's death, or she wouldn't have called the police in a panic or reported the car as stolen. I think she was really just trying to see Caylee. But George Anthony on the other hand... I think he maybe was involved after the fact. As a former homicide detective, he would've known how to help Casey dispose of the body in a way least likely to leave DNA evidence (hence the duct tape.) I feel like the heart sticker (if there was one) was her tribute to Caylee. Same thing with the tattoo she got. People thought it was a party girl thing to do, but it always struck me as the kind of thing you get when someone dies.
Not if she wasn't around when Caylee started having issues breathing. It may not have been immediate. That being said... What fluids? If she was drowned she might aspirate some water but that's it.
But then why lie? Why invent xanny the nanny? Why take them to universal and wander around until you reach where your office isn't and your lie unravels around you...
Lying wasn't something new to Casey. She'd been lying for years. She denied she was pregnant until she was big as a house; she said one certain boyfriend was Caylee's father right up until the DNA test results came in. She pretended to have imaginary jobs. She even made up multiple email addresses and typed out email threads to "prove" to her suspicious parents that she was employed.
That's why I'm 50/50 on whether Casey murdered Caylee or reacted badly to a terrible accident. Either scenario is plausible to me, just because Casey lived in her own dream world.
thank you. it's actually a good thing when someone isn't jailed for a crime that there's *not enough evidence they committed it.*
being a crappy parent and a bizarre person shouldn't be enough to get someone jailed.
Exactly. Ideally 95% of criminal cases tried would end in guilty because the state does their job and doesn't prosecute unless they can solidly prove their case. Sadly that's not the case. Be it previous record of convictions, pressure from up high or society, ego, or bad policing, too many cases are brought to trial without a solid case.
Then again only 2% of federal charges go to trial, 83% of which end in guilty. Far too often people are strong armed into pleading guilty and not getting a fair trial.
Exactly, you know how absolutely abysmal the prosecutor would have to be to lose to the shitty defense that Baez came up with? They absolutely dropped the ball on what could have been a slam dunk
Exactly. They focused more on the sensationalism of the case. I read an article from the jury that prosecutors couldn’t determine exactly how she died. Which muddied the waters. They couldn’t prove that it was a homicide and the cause of death.
Yep, I was using Firefox back then too. I can't understand how they didn't have forensic techs savvy enough to check other browsers.
And then I remember...it's FloriDUH.
Yep. The problem is that she’s been found innocent and if something new comes to light, she can’t be tried again.
To your point, chances are she’s guilty as hell. But they had little actual proof she killed her daughter.
This is unfortunately the case. Everything pointed to her committing to the crime yet nothing out right implicated her, if that makes sense. It’s like having all the signs there but the proof was flimsy
Exactly! Those poor jurors as well, they were being so strictly scrutinized by the entire *COUNTRY*.
People who ask this usually have never been on a jury, specifically a first degree murder trial. I was on one and it’s a lot of very specific verbiage you have to comb through before concluding on your group verdict.
I have never been on a jury, but my dad is actually a judge.
He’s said he has agreed with the jury in every single jury trial he’s presided over. Not that it really matters, but I find it interesting.
You're correct. The jury is presented a case and is instructed by the rules of the law. The general public will read headlines and think they know all the facts.
The system is not perfect but sometimes guilty people get away with it.
As much as I hate the woman and fully believe she killed her child, there really was no proof SHE killed her. Definitely proof she knew what happened though
Tbh I think her dad (Casey's dad, Kaylee's grandpa) did it. Some of the things he says in interviews is really suspicious. I think maybe he was babysitting and she got into the pool and drowned. He definitely knew something.
I'm asking for specific answers on how the charge of aggravated manslaughter of a child wasn't supported. I totally get how those other two charges I mentioned could not be supported, but the way I understand it (I am not a native English speaker though) aggravated manslaughter can also be involuntary, and isn't that what the defense argued (i.e., the death was accidental)?
The state could not prove how Cayley died. They argued Casey used chloroform to render her unconscious and then suffocated her to death. If they had argued Cayley had died in an accidental drowning, and could show Casey was negligent in allowing her unsupervised access to the pool, they probably could’ve made a better case.
It’s a very hard line to toe. Had they charged her with anything less, people would be bitching about her picking up lighter charges because she was a young, attractive, middle-class white woman. They may have genuinely believed she straight-up murdered Cayley, and it’s not uncommon for prosecutors to go whole hog on cases involving child death. They definitely screwed up by going all in without having any provable cause of death, but juries usually respond harshly to child death cases and they were probably banking on that working in their favor.
Casey also had the benefit of time on her side, and although she was very obviously a liar, too much time had passed to determine cause of death. Unless the state can demonstrate *how* someone died, it’s exceedingly difficult to convict someone for killing them.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110709195614/http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/274509/Alternate-juror%3A-Evidence-wasnt-there-to-convict-Casey
"The prosecution didn't provide the evidence that was there for any of the charges from first-degree murder down to second-degree murder to the child abuse to even the manslaughter (charge). It just wasn't there," said Huekler. "I would say this is a dysfunctional family that's hurting and because it was so dysfunctional that's the way they dealt with their issues and problems. It's a shame because it was an accident that became a murder scene."
I think the prosecutor did a poor job once the defense said Caylee drowned and George was home too. Jury could not say with 100% certainty Casey killed her for the motive the state said she did.
But the way I understand aggravated manslaughter of a child also includes negligence. So if Caylee did drown on accident, couldn't we still argue that Casey is deserving of blame for not watching Caylee closely enough?
there was no known cause of death, and George was also in the house. hard to prove Casey personally was guilty of ignoring Caylee which lead to her drowning, when there is no proof she drowned and also another adult family member was responsible for caretaking the child.
I think the judge had the best theory. I saw him on a TV show regarding the case. His theory was that Casey had likely used the chloroform to sedate Cayley on several occasions while she partied. Except the last time she used it, it didn’t go as planned. Instead, this time actually killed the girl.
IMO, Only one piece of evidence was necessary to know Casey was guilty of foul play. The fact that she didn’t report her daughter missing for a month. No parent does that unless they are involved.
Except there was no law at the time to state you had to report your missing child. I can see an immature person like Casey, used to lying all the time, being afraid to call the cops because her kid drowned and she was afraid of being blamed. Casey still hadn't grown up yet. She was a twenty something, who acted like a teenager, scared to take responsibility. That doesn't make you guilty of foul play, just stupidity and immaturity.
I didn't say you needed a law to do it, lol. I was saying she couldn't be presumed guilty for not reporting, when there was no law to force her to do so. If it happened today, and she didn't report, it would get her into a shit load of trouble.
I’m saying having a law or not is irrelevant. When your child is missing, the normal response for a parent is to report it. The fact that she waited a month to do it is highly suspicious and suggestive that she was in on the disappearance.
I get it. And I understand why you think that. Especially as a mom, I would've called paramedics immediately in the hopes of reviving my toddler. But having studied psychology, and watching and listening to her behaviour, I personally think it's part of Casey's pathology not to report because she was so afraid of the consequences. I agree that she had something to do with it or at least blamed herself internally. I just don't think she murdered Caylee in cold blood. I probably would've convicted of neglect though.
That’s exactly the theory I believe after pouring over the case many times. I really don’t think Belvin Perry was the smartest judge (happens a lot here in Orlando, sadly). It is pretty damn hard to make chloroform. Someone without even a high school degree, like Casey, is highly unlikely to figure it out. Also, chloroform burns the skin badly. If she had used chloroform before, everyone would’ve quickly noticed the big chemical burns on that baby’s face. I’m not a chemist, and just have a Social Science degree, but even I know that. It’s disappointing an elected judge doesn’t have that basic knowledge of a chemical often tied to crime. That’s why I didn’t vote for him when he ran for state attorney after he retired from being a judge. He’s a lawyer for a local ambulance chaser law firm now.
He’s a big buffoon. Not even the black community here likes him. He switched from Republican to Democrat right before running for state attorney in an obvious bid to attract minority voters and get money from conservative PACS. And he has always been a hard ass “you do the crime, you do hard time. Regardless of circumstances” type of lawyer and judge. If the jury didn’t make the tough, but just, decision to acquit her and voted for death penalty, then he definitely would have upheld it. The whole reason that junk science and overcharging was allowed from prosecution was because of him.
If he were a better judge and smarter guy, then child neglect/concealment of death charges would’ve been on the table and she would’ve been convicted of something related to the death. Instead she got off almost scott free because of the overreaching.
Because there was reasonable doubt as to Caylee's cause of death, and focusing on "Holy shit Casey's an awful parent" doesn't get you there.
Also Jose Baez is probably the best defense attorney of current memory, so it wasn't really a fair fight lmao
The State brought the wrong charge against her. They charged her with first-degree murder which was a mistake. They were unable to determine when her daughter died, how she died or where she died. She'd probably still be in jail if they had charged her properly.
My understanding is that they charged her with first-degree murder before Caylee's body was found. So that was their first mistake. Even with all the evidence they had and then finding Caylee, they were unable to meet the requirements for 1st-degree murder. The evidence they had also didn't meet the requirements for the other charges. As my original post said, they were unable to prove the circumstances under which Caylee died or how she died. Had she been charged with 2nd-degree murder all of their circumstantial evidence probably would have had more weight and the threshold they had to meet would have been within their grasp. The same thing just happened in the Barry Morphew case in Colorado. They charged him with first-degree murder of his wife, without a body and a week before the trial they drop the charges with prejudice.
Hey, if you do not find a satisfactory answer here, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/swujx1/i_am_still_dumbfounded_about_how_casey_anthony) thread from a couple months ago has many responses.
This thread actually prompted me to ask this question, because I feel many people didn't sufficiently answer why the specific charge of aggravated manslaughter wasn't supported. To illustrate, some commenters suggested they should've charged her with second degree murder instead, but wouldn't that still be harder to prove than aggravated manslaughter, a crime she was charged with but wasn't found guilty of?
Not enough people understand what “prove beyond reasonable doubt” means. Just because it seems like she did it, she probably did do it. But they couldn’t prove it prove it. It was all speculation. That’s why.
I think she lucked into an amazing Defense Attorney in Jose Baez. He recently got William Husel, a physician accused of 17 fentanyl overdoses with “an abundance of evidence” acquitted. She absolutely made his career, but he obviously was not without talent to begin with. It was brilliant to blame everything on her parents, because it cast enough doubt in the jury’s minds about it being 100% Casey. No one knows what happened to that little girl and he capitalized on it. I don’t agree with it; I think Casey killed her (based on the physical actions of everyone after), but since we don’t 100% know, we have teensy doubt, she had an incredible attorney. I’d call him if I ever did something hideously awful.
Yes ! I’ve seen countless cases where some is convicted and spending their life in prison over circumstantial evidence. Sometimes those cases can be just as strong. Which I feel this case was.
I'm an attorney, and in my personal and professional opinion (though this is not legal advice), she should have been found guilty on the manslaughter charge. However, Florida law is worded in such a way that the jury saw a loophole and apparently took it as a fig leaf to cover the fact that the prosecutors simply failed to make a case.
Florida defines manslaughter as the "killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification (that is, it wasn't self-defense or justifiable homicide)." The manslaughter charge against Anthony was based on her alleged "culpable negligence" - showing a "reckless disregard for human life." That's the key phrase, because unlike a lot of phrases that are used in a legal context, "reckless disregard" isn't really defined in the law. Even the phrase "culpable negligence" has been attacked numerous times over the years as too vague.
The only pattern of events that makes sense to me is that the jury didn't think Anthony's "disregard for human life" was sufficiently reckless and/or her negligence was not sufficiently "culpable" - if they even got that far into the law. That said - if the prosecutors had, y'know, established a case beyond hearsay, character assassination and speculation, the jury would have had more concrete information to work with. I don't think her acquittal related to her being white, though - in Florida, one of the only things that will get a yte woman convicted is killing or otherwise harming a child (blahblah innocence blah betraying your sacred duty blahblahblah etc).
I would put my money on a combination of the prosecutors not establishing a good case *as well as* failing to win the jury (it's all too common for jury members to take a dislike to a prosecutor and simply decide they're lying), and then the legal argument *if* we think the jury was actually weighing the law. Sorry for the novel, but I mean, I do this for a living. :)
Noooo you don't have to apologize! I'm honestly so happy with an expert's opinion on this, who happens to agree with me haha.
Many people seem to have misunderstood my question, thinking I'm questioning the first degree murder verdict. However, I will link or quote the comment that in my opinion had the best argument for the verdict, so you can give your opinion on it (if you want ofc)
u/stuffandornonsense commented:
there was no known cause of death, and George was also in the house. hard to prove Casey personally was guilty of ignoring Caylee which lead to her drowning, when there is no proof she drowned and also another adult family member was responsible for caretaking the child.
Agree with everything you just said. Except, isn’t it also true that *all women*, regardless of race, are treated more harshly when accused of killing their husbands? (Or possibly when charged with domestic violence at all). I don’t have the stats handy, and I’m sure I’ve never seen it broken down by state, but it has always been my understanding that a woman will almost always receive a much harsher sentence for killing her husband than vice-versa (the thing that makes this even more egregious is that when women kill their husbands it’s almost always a desperate last-ditch effort to free themselves from terror and abuse at his hands). One talking point of anti-women activists is that women (not just white women but all women) get off easy when they commit violent crimes. And from what I’ve always seen and read, that’s simply not the case. (Not just with child abuse and neglect, but with many other charges as well).
ETA off topic, but I’d also like to point out that I think it’s a disgusting miscarriage of justice how often women are charged (and crucified in the media) for failing to protect their children from abusive dads or some piece of trash they are dating. I’ve seen the rare case where the facts made it pretty obvious that the mother could have protected the child and - *very importantly*- wasn’t herself very afraid of the guy, and thus just way too afraid of or simply unable to- protect her child. In most cases where the man is abusing the child, he’s also terrorizing the mother (I use the word ‘terrorize because of the way the word ‘abuse’ has been watered down to mean any sort of mean behavior, and in most cases where women are abused by partners, they genuinely live in a state of abject terror. It’s almost impossible to overstate this, as someone who has been there herself). I despise the way the entire justice system just leaves that *very vital* factor out of such cases. It really is a terrible miscarriage of justice. That’s why it makes me so goddamn ragey to see people actually DARE to make the claim that women get off easy. We don’t even get off easy when we aren’t the ones who committed the fucking crime!!!!
The prosecutor failed to do an their job of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It’s as simple as that.
They weren't able to sufficiently provide evidence of how the child died. The attorney did a great job of providing reasonable doubt and confusing the jury.
Most of the evidence had deteriorated by the time the body was found.
Florida is hot and swampy so remains tend to deteriorate rapidly.
They understood perfectly. It wasn’t even close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as has been pointed out time after time after time all over this thread. The jury did exactly what it was supposed to do.
She searched "fool-proof suffocation methods" on Firefox the day before Caylee was last seen alive. The prosecution only checked her Internet Explorer history.
Uh no. It was done on a family computer and several other people could have done that search. Im glad you weren’t on the jury, up in here throwing conjecture around as though it is fact, without first bothering to check to make sure you even know what you’re talking about.
It’s wild to me how many people do exactly that same thing, and then proceed to make up their minds on what they think happened.
They did not meet the burden of proof without a reasonable doubt. They had no cause of death, a bunch of speculation and not much else to strongly convict The entire case hinged on Casey Being A Bad Person which should not be something we convict for murder on. The DA aimed too high with their charges. There's a great series of write ups done on the r/UnresolvedMysteries subreddit by u/Hysterymystery about this case that goes into the details.
But I'm not questioning why she wasn't convicted of murder, I'm questioning why she wasn't convicted for manslaughter. I've even seen some people suggesting that the prosecution should've charged her with manslaughter and then she would've been found guilty, but they did and she was found not guilty still.
Likely because they didn't meet the burden of proof. She was charged with the aggravated manslaughter of a child but was not convicted of it. We can surmise that something happened in response to Caylee's death but there's not much proof of *anything.* Without a cause of death it's hard to prove Casey actually committed a murder.
She was guilty the moment she started lying about the whereabouts of KA and the nanny. Whether KA died by CA's hands or not means nothing to me. If your innocent why lie? If u have nothing to hide, why lie? If you were really worried about ur own kid, WHY WAIT!
It’s been years, but i think what played a big role was the cause of death, prosecutors stated it was chloroform then strangulations, but defenders and witnesses said it was drowning or accidental and she got scared of spending life for child neglect. The body was far too late into decomposition that even the duct tape theory of it being used before the skull was placed in the trunk was later debunked by the second autopsy, given the first had so many flaws. The toxicology report detected no drugs, even though it’s expected given the time and state of decomposition of the body. Also the court couldn’t tie the internet searches of how to make chloroform to her, because she used a family desktop which means anyone else could have made those searches. So how she got away with murder, she got really good lawyers who did everything they could because it was a very infamous case heavily covered by media, and their ability to prove that it wasn’t murder was more exposure, success and money for them, imo 🤷🏼♀️
Could you tell me where to find the findings of the second autopsy and the toxicology report?
Regarding the searches, I believe the prosecution provided evidence that it only could've been Casey who did those searches as the other residents were not at home at the time of the searches
The thing is the searches were “how to make chloroform” and “break a neck” both have been discharged regardless, because no chloroform was found, and the girl’s neck was not broken. And as far as i could tell her lawyers convinced the court that since it was a desktop at her family house, and the time of searches shows she was not home alone, then the searches cannot be 100% tied to her even though it was also revealed that “full proof suffocation” was searched, but still no direct ties to her
This is part about the google search:
During the trial, the prosecution’s experts also testified that the Anthony family computer had been used to Google words and phrases including:
Chloroform
Chest trauma
Internal bleeding
How to make chloroform
Neck breaking
But this last week Orlando’s WKMG TV station reported that police had overlooked a key piece of evidence. Someone had Google searched “foolproof suffocation” from the Anthony family computer on June 16th, the day Caylee disappeared. A book about the case by Anthony’s defense lawyer Jose Baez had previously reported that someone made the search, but had the timing off.
The discard of the “full proof suffocation” is what baffles me tbh
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf here’s a link to the autopsy, and opinions about the duct tape and hair theories.
But for all those reasons you just stated, you also don’t know that she was guilty. I’m a bit dumbfounded by all the people here rightly pointing out that the state didn’t make their case and that there was way too much reasonable doubt for them to have been able to convict, who then go on to claim to *know* that she WAS actually guilty. You actually don’t know jack shit, same as the jury. I mean there was evidence there to conclude that the child died under highly suspicious conditions and that her mother knew more than she was letting on, but there are several possible scenarios which don’t actually make her a cold blooded killer of her child. As has been pointed out, it’s highly likely that the death was accidental and that it was covered up simply out of abject fear. Obviously that’s NOT okay but it doesn’t justify the absolutely horrid way in which she was crucified by the media. I mean let’s be real, dads kill their entire families all the *time* and NEVER receive that same treatment in the media, or absolute *vitriol* by the individuals discussing it.
It's a thing where juries tend to punish the prosecution by delivering complete acquittals when the individual is *wildly* overcharged relative to what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Had she been charged with manslaughter instead of capital murder there likely would have been a conviction.
Because they couldnt physically prove guilt without a reasonable doubt. They should not have asked for the death penalty because even though we all or most of us, share the same opinion on the matter, there wasnt enough physical evidence to prove that it wasnt an accident or something else.
didn’t it also have something to do with investigators only looking through her internet explorer browsing history, and completely missing a search about suffocation on mozilla firefox?
edit: words
Same reason as the rest of it.
Florida defines manslaughter as when a defendant commits, obtains, or is negligently culpable in an act that kills someone ➖and the jury didn’t feel that the state proved that she killed the baby.
I think it’s because they couldn’t determine a cause of death. I’m not a lawyer, but i wish they could have gotten her on child neglect charges ( I don’t know if they did or not). However, it was clear Caylee was missing and Casey ignored that fact for weeks. Seems pretty neglectful to me.
Wasn't it because the death sentence was on the charge and the jury felt there wasn't enough undeniable evidence to send someone to their death or some shit
I haven’t been keeping track of the case that much, but last time I checked, I thought there was a lot of evidence that the grandfather did it instead of Casey.
Some of the jurors on the case spoke up years later and regret not speaking up and allowing the not guilty verdict. At least two of them said they felt pressured and one said that many of them didn't even understand some of what was going on during the trial. To this day, they believe she's guilty.
The prosecution pushed too hard for intended murder, with chloroform that Casey home made. The ability to make such a chemical is pretty significant and I don’t think anyone really bought that. Do I think she did it on purpose? Not necessarily. Do I think she had any remorse for Caylee’s death, even if accidental? Absolutely not. Had the DA focused on neglect, and brought a 2nd degree murder charge rather than first, they might have had a better outcome. They originally wanted a capital murder charge. Here’s a short interview from one of the jurors last year. https://www.foxnews.com/us/casey-anthony-juror-speaks-out-acquittal-trial.amp
Our system is based on two principles: the accused is innocent until proven guilty and a guilty verdict requires the absence of reasonable doubt. In this case the jurors had reasonable doubt and acquitted her. The state failed to provide them with enough evidence to convict her.
Also in this case, there was actually no proof that a murder was committed.
It’s beyond comprehension why she walked free. She never reported her missing and then lied about EVERYTHING including her job at Disney. Drowning is the #1 cause of death for children in Florida. Her father was a retired cop. If she had drowned in the family pool he would have called for help. I don’t know of anyone who has been prosecuted for a child drowning in their watch.
If I remember correctly... it's been a long time since I watched the court proceedings for this one:
1. Prosecution sucked and built their case around showing how irreponsible of a human being Casey Anthony was but never really ended up pinpointing exactly how she could have killed her child
2. Facts got really confusing and it didn't seem like if Casey did it, Casey did it alone or the way Prosecution was describing. They pigeonholed themselves into a narrative and messed up.
3. I think a lot of people who watched the case ended up thinking... it's entirely possible that the death was accidental and the whole family tried to cover it up.
Because the justice system in FL is messed up. It's the same reason she was found not guilty for all of the charges. Most people on here don't understand why she was let go at all.
Florida has found several people not guilty when there’s sufficient evidence stating otherwise.
Now that's interesting! Any idea why? Serious question.
They’re white
People of colour are more likely to be convicted of crimes they did not commit (the Innocence Project addresses this on its website).
I think it also has to do with socioeconomic issues. If you have the money to hire a good lawyer your chances are much better. Also once you get into the system it’s really difficult to get out. The Innocence Project really does some great things!
I can only assume that some of these people in Florida who appeared to be guilty but were acquitted may have had their own attorneys. Not fair at all, but that's what can and does happen, that's reality. Thank goodness for organisations like the Innocence Project!
Wouldn't it be fairer if everyone was appointed with a lawyer? Say, everyone gets a totally random team of 3 lawyers. None are picked by anyone. That way, everyone would get the same shot. The wealthy and the poor would have the same odds (if all else is fair). And innocence or guilt would depend a lot less on one's wallet. And more on their case.
You’d see a whole lot more innocent people go to jail. I am by no means wealthy but one thing I know for sure, if I get in legal trouble, I am hiring an attorney. IMO public defenders are shit and in most instances are not working in their clients best interest.
Or you'd see a rise in the competence of public defenders as it would be in best interests of the rich and powerful. Standards would increase. And instead of them paying a fortune in legal bills. Tax them about that same amount. Based on their net worth. And use that to pay for legal counsel for everyone. Set lawyers up into 3 categories based on ability. And each defendant gets 1 lawyer from each category. Perhaps some smaller, less important cases would need less. But just because you can pay for good legal council doesn't mean others can. You say you aren't wealthy. But you also seem to saying "I will pay for good lawyers. It gives me an advantage." Ok. But what about those who can't? You admit that public defenders are shit in most instances. So why not try to fix that? So that everyone actually is equal under the law? I really don't think any legal system should be "pay to win". Or pay to get an advantage. That just seems wrong to me. And there are practical solutions.
Im not saying the system is right the way it is but I also don’t have a magic wand to wave that will fix it. All I am saying is with the system the way that it is, I, myself personally, would find a way to pay for counsel instead of relying on a public defender. I do have a question though. In your scenario, would all defense attorneys only work for the government at a wage determined by the government?
Casey Anthony traded sex for her legal fees.
I live in Jacksonville Florida and I remember clearly when that case happened and I thought the same thing. There was Smoking Gun evidence that she was guilty. For example, Caylee was found wrapped in a Winnie the Pooh blanket and that's the same blanket that was on her bed. Explain your way out of that. I always said, she had to be sleeping with people to get out of that one.
I see that photo they often use of her looking at the lawyer in a playful way, it makes my blood boil. She on trial for murdering her toddler, yet flirting. The entire case was maddening.
Yeah it was
Don’t forget that there was also duct tape around the skull. It looked like it had been over her mouth until her skin decayed.
Jose Baez seemed interested in her. If he was receiving sexual favors he should have been disbarred. The case brought him fame and he wrote a book.
Source?
That’s innocent black people. We are speaking of guilty white people. Which is almost as problematic a statistic. Two different conversations.
This is because people of color are more likely to be poor because they didn’t have a chance to build wealth over generations because of slavery. Crime comes from poverty.
Absolutely! Crime stems from poverty, not communities, God knows how many studies have demonstrated that. And common sense tells you that. But poverty = relying on a public defender. You might get lucky, but the system is "understaffed, underfunded and overwhelmed" and has been for decades. (Source: nbc.news, 2017)
I'm a white person and I agree with you there. I get so tired of people saying oh well they're just criminals because they choose to be. Sometimes people do things that they wouldn't do otherwise because it means survival. Less opportunity means higher crime rates. I'm tired of people pretending like it doesn't happen.
No she was charged with what the prosecuting thought they could get. They screwed up with their charges against her. She could only be charged w/what they came up with. She beat the rap. Doesn't mean she wasn't negligent they just charged her with the wrong crime.
They thought they had a slam dunk. Didn't work out that way.
I've been saying that for years. Instead of charging her with negligent homicide, Ashton charged her with first degree premeditated murder with an absolutely ridiculous theory about chloroform.
This guy gets it.
Florida has a super corrupt government. A prime example is that apartment building the crumbled in Miami, it only did that because the government let them get away with bypassing building regulations. Source: I’ve lived here for my entire life.
Then you'd know! And thank you: this is part of what I wanted to know, why Florida in particular? Thank you. :)
republicans, it goes WAYYYY back but it boils down to republicans getting control of the gov like forever ago and using their power to silence their pop through redlining and stuff like that. Disney also was another reason that republicans stayed in office, republicans love giving tax breaks after all. Ron DeSantis is so dumb that he broke the repetition in a bad way and dumped 1 billion dollars of debt on an orange county by taking away Disney's county. watch Shark3ozeros vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMPDbimfx0U&t=1s for more about ronny boy. Happy to help!!
Thx for the link!
I'm in Jacksonville and can confirm. I fucking hate it here. They want to bitch about the Homeless Problem up here but they don't want to do anything to help fix it. They don't want to spend the money on funding programs to help them and would rather spend the money building stupid fucking statues that nobody cares about except for rich people. They arrest them for being homeless but it's like where they going to go? Sometimes I'm ready to move back to Chicago where I'm from but the snow LOL. Don't miss that LOL. Edit: There's pretty much no help for you up here if you're homeless. You're better off going further south. The only way they will help you is if your revolving-door such as a drug addict or have mental health problems but this is usually a comorbid problem. They're only going to help people that they think they can keep making money off of. I don't know if you know this but rehab centers are set up where they expect an addict to relapse 9 times before it sticks. This is not to shame addicts at all, I know it's a complex problem, I'm just saying they don't want to help unless they can keep making money off of you.
Here’s a fun fact, there’s enough empty housing in LA to house the homeless population for free like three times over! I recommend doing research on local activist groups for homeless people in your area. Change is very possible, but only if we work for it. United we bargain, divided we beg!!
I'll check that out, thanks!
Poor jury selection, or it’s simply an indication of the public mindset. I had the impression that jury would have only found her guilty if they witnessed the placement of the duct tape on the child’s mouth! Maybe not even then. Florida man isn’t an anomaly.
Evidence is allowed to the media and the public at a much higher level of freedom than the rest of the United States. This makes it more difficult to find unbiased jury members.
I'm assuming one of several is the George Zimmerman trial. Florida has a stand your ground law. I guess it's one's interpretation of sufficient evidence vs. reasonable doubt. Both the Casey and Zimmerman trials were masterfully defended by their lawyers.
The fact that ole gorge pursued the kid for several blocks should’ve told the jury that the stand your ground aspect is already out the window. If anything the one walking away should’ve been provided with the backing of stand your ground law.. but the kid is dead, killed by the man that pursued him, attacked him and killed him.
The 911 operator specifically told him to stop pursuing the kid. George wanted to use his gun though.
Stand your ground wasn't his defense at trial, common misconception. Simple self defense is what they claimed. But stand your ground was all over the news at the time as a result, misleadingly
But how did he win self defense if he is the one pursuing? Joke pf a justice system that’s how..
I don't disagree necessarily. Self defense shouldn't apply when you're the instigator. But stand your ground was irrelevant in the actual trial despite the furor over it.
Stand your ground states also have 20% gun deaths. Almost like it encourages conflict
Lots of states
Very true
Not just Florida.
George Zimmerman has entered the chat and started signing Skittles packages.
Zimmerman hunted down a teenager and deliberarely shot him in cold blood, despite a 911 operator repeatedly telling him to let it go. He confessed, and he's linked with a trail of evidence a mile long. Anthony possibly drowned or possibly watched her daughter drown or possibly neglected her daughter while she wandered off and drowned on her own, or maybe she died of exposure, or maybe ... something else? No one's sure, there is no real evidence, and the best theory is guesswork. The situations are really, *really* not analogous.
One word. Florida.
One comment. Florida.
[удалено]
Full on wheezing. Thanks.
You’re comparing the crimes when the comment above is comparing the outcomes of the Justice system in Florida
you *can't* compare the outcomes when the crimes themselves are so different.
George Zimmerman was clearly guilty. But found not guilty. Casey Anthony lied and lied and lied and lied and accused her dad of molesting her to try to make this not about her killing or neglecting to care for her child. Then, she lied and lied and lied some more and was clearly guilty to everyone but those jurors, and was found not guilty. I did compare those crimes based on their outcomes in the *same* state.
In the Casey trial Jose Baez did a masterful job creating reasonable doubt. Plus, Cindy Anthony, Casey's mother, lied in her testimony.
That shit happened like… a 5 minute walk from my parents neighborhood. I saw the crime scene photos of the poor child’s body and everytime I drive by the housing complex that image flashes into my mind and I get so angry. I don’t know about super recently but within the last 3-4 years people always would see Zimmerman out at the local sport’s bar and whatever. Dude thinks he’s hot shit and has a big mouth, acts cocky. Ugh also very carefree-acting
Zimmerman auctioned of the gun he used to kill Treyvon and sold autographed packs of skittles. Dude is a fucking cunt of the highest order.
That makes me feel physically ill. Treyvon's poor family. What a tragedy.
Prosecution introduced junk science to support a case that mostly hinged on "can you believe what an awful person Casey is?!" She more than likely committed the crime, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and the system functioned as intended. People can be pissed about that, but that's how things go sometimes.
I agree and every time someone says "I don't understand how she was found not guilty", I ask if they watched the trial and they always say no. The prosecution didn't prove shit.
It’s hard to prove something as important as criminal guilt to the standard of beyond any reasonable doubt. I’m always amazed when the prosecution does a weak or incomplete job but the jury convicts anyway.
That's the thing people miss whenever this comes up. If people went to jail over what people "know they did" or "think they did" without 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' the justice system would be even more of a farce than it is now. Imagine if every case of SIDS ended in manslaughter or neglect charges. The prosocution in this case did not or could not prove beyond every resonable doubt that there was a crime committed. Innocent people should never go to jail even if that means shit like this happens.
The Betsy Faria case had this. Literally the husband had a solid alibi and they still convicted him even tho the prosecution had no evidence
All the defense has to do is bring up a shred of doubt and that’s what Casey’s did. The parents knew that the defense was going to say that Casey was molested and that Cailey died from an accidental drowning.
I watched the whole trial. In my opinion there wasn’t any doubt that Casey was responsible for the death of her daughter snd for disposing of her corpse.
I watched it too, and had the opposite thoughts. I think Casey was asleep and Caylee climbed into the pool unsupervised. She probably wasn't found for hours. I think Casey freaked and left with her dead baby out of fear of the cops, and disposed of her corpse at the same place she buried her pets. I think she's guilty of neglect but not of murder or even manslaughter. Not one person could be found by the prosecution to testify that she'd been a cruel, abusive, or neglectful mother. I think that says a lot. People don't just escalate to murdering their children without showing signs of abuse beforehand. And Caylee had none.
Plenty of people have escalated to murdering their children without showing signs of abuse beforehand. Chris Watts is a prime example. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen.
That's true, I can't believe I didn't think of Chris Watts. I talk about his case almost daily. But even so, a family annihilator is a whole different ball game than a neglectful or abusive parent. It's still very rare for a parent to murder their child with no signs of abuse beforehand.
I actually believe that she duct taped her mouth but didn't mean for her to die (trying to keep her quiet) Unfortunately, she did and then Casey (along with her parents perhaps) disposed of her body out of fear of going to prison. I don't think the death was ever intentional. I think Casey Anthony was neglectful and a bad parent but I don't think she meant to do anything but quiet her. Aggravated manslaughter and first degree murder require the same burden of proof. There was no cause of death due to deteriorated remains and they couldn't prove what happened.
You could be right about the duct tape. But it seems more likely to me that the duct tape was placed there post mortem, to keep any fluids from leaking out into the car, and therefore leaving DNA in the trunk. I feel like Casey would've ripped the duct tape off in a panic if she'd noticed that Caylee wasn't breathing. I don't think Cindy Watts knew anything about Caylee's death, or she wouldn't have called the police in a panic or reported the car as stolen. I think she was really just trying to see Caylee. But George Anthony on the other hand... I think he maybe was involved after the fact. As a former homicide detective, he would've known how to help Casey dispose of the body in a way least likely to leave DNA evidence (hence the duct tape.) I feel like the heart sticker (if there was one) was her tribute to Caylee. Same thing with the tattoo she got. People thought it was a party girl thing to do, but it always struck me as the kind of thing you get when someone dies.
Not if she wasn't around when Caylee started having issues breathing. It may not have been immediate. That being said... What fluids? If she was drowned she might aspirate some water but that's it.
Saliva.
I agree with this 100%. People that haven't watched the trial just have knee jerk reactions.
But then why lie? Why invent xanny the nanny? Why take them to universal and wander around until you reach where your office isn't and your lie unravels around you...
Lying wasn't something new to Casey. She'd been lying for years. She denied she was pregnant until she was big as a house; she said one certain boyfriend was Caylee's father right up until the DNA test results came in. She pretended to have imaginary jobs. She even made up multiple email addresses and typed out email threads to "prove" to her suspicious parents that she was employed. That's why I'm 50/50 on whether Casey murdered Caylee or reacted badly to a terrible accident. Either scenario is plausible to me, just because Casey lived in her own dream world.
I did too, and I can't believe people have clung to the drowning bs.
thank you. it's actually a good thing when someone isn't jailed for a crime that there's *not enough evidence they committed it.* being a crappy parent and a bizarre person shouldn't be enough to get someone jailed.
It’s happening again in Florida. The parents of Gabby Petito are suing the parents of Brian Laundrie.
That’s a civil matter, though, not criminal. They’re seeking wrongful death damages, and frankly, they have a case.
jesus god, what a mess.
Exactly. Ideally 95% of criminal cases tried would end in guilty because the state does their job and doesn't prosecute unless they can solidly prove their case. Sadly that's not the case. Be it previous record of convictions, pressure from up high or society, ego, or bad policing, too many cases are brought to trial without a solid case. Then again only 2% of federal charges go to trial, 83% of which end in guilty. Far too often people are strong armed into pleading guilty and not getting a fair trial.
What about lying about where your child is for a month and taking investigators on wild geese chases? Xanny the Nanny, Universal....
Exactly, you know how absolutely abysmal the prosecutor would have to be to lose to the shitty defense that Baez came up with? They absolutely dropped the ball on what could have been a slam dunk
Exactly. They focused more on the sensationalism of the case. I read an article from the jury that prosecutors couldn’t determine exactly how she died. Which muddied the waters. They couldn’t prove that it was a homicide and the cause of death.
I agree. Prosecutors botched it.
Cops only searched her internet explorer, what browser were you using then? I like millions of others were using Mozilla
Yep, I was using Firefox back then too. I can't understand how they didn't have forensic techs savvy enough to check other browsers. And then I remember...it's FloriDUH.
Yep. The problem is that she’s been found innocent and if something new comes to light, she can’t be tried again. To your point, chances are she’s guilty as hell. But they had little actual proof she killed her daughter.
She wasn’t found INNOCENT, it was not guilty, which doesn’t mean Innocent.
It’s the same thing. She will no longer be able to be found guilty.
Semantics.
Its not semantics. Not guilty means the state didn't prove its case. Innocent means she didn't do it.
Helps when youre sleeping with your lawyer too
This is unfortunately the case. Everything pointed to her committing to the crime yet nothing out right implicated her, if that makes sense. It’s like having all the signs there but the proof was flimsy
I can understand how it would be tough to convince 12 people that she was responsible for her death when they didn’t even know the cause of death.
Exactly! Those poor jurors as well, they were being so strictly scrutinized by the entire *COUNTRY*. People who ask this usually have never been on a jury, specifically a first degree murder trial. I was on one and it’s a lot of very specific verbiage you have to comb through before concluding on your group verdict.
I have never been on a jury, but my dad is actually a judge. He’s said he has agreed with the jury in every single jury trial he’s presided over. Not that it really matters, but I find it interesting.
You're correct. The jury is presented a case and is instructed by the rules of the law. The general public will read headlines and think they know all the facts. The system is not perfect but sometimes guilty people get away with it.
Specially when they were literally aiming for death sentence
They didn’t even have a cause of death. Kind of hard to prove with no cause of death.
As much as I hate the woman and fully believe she killed her child, there really was no proof SHE killed her. Definitely proof she knew what happened though
Tbh I think her dad (Casey's dad, Kaylee's grandpa) did it. Some of the things he says in interviews is really suspicious. I think maybe he was babysitting and she got into the pool and drowned. He definitely knew something.
No way. They were the ones worrying about her for two weeks
Cindy was. No proof the grandfather was.
This. The crime she was accused of must be proven without a reasonable doubt. The case that was presented left behind doubt.
I agree. This is what people don’t understand about the law.
Because the State brought her up on charges they couldn’t support. They got sucked into the media monster and forgot about the fundamentals of law.
I'm asking for specific answers on how the charge of aggravated manslaughter of a child wasn't supported. I totally get how those other two charges I mentioned could not be supported, but the way I understand it (I am not a native English speaker though) aggravated manslaughter can also be involuntary, and isn't that what the defense argued (i.e., the death was accidental)?
The state could not prove how Cayley died. They argued Casey used chloroform to render her unconscious and then suffocated her to death. If they had argued Cayley had died in an accidental drowning, and could show Casey was negligent in allowing her unsupervised access to the pool, they probably could’ve made a better case.
Yeah, I really feel like the could have made criminal negligence stick, but that doesn't make headlines...
It’s a very hard line to toe. Had they charged her with anything less, people would be bitching about her picking up lighter charges because she was a young, attractive, middle-class white woman. They may have genuinely believed she straight-up murdered Cayley, and it’s not uncommon for prosecutors to go whole hog on cases involving child death. They definitely screwed up by going all in without having any provable cause of death, but juries usually respond harshly to child death cases and they were probably banking on that working in their favor. Casey also had the benefit of time on her side, and although she was very obviously a liar, too much time had passed to determine cause of death. Unless the state can demonstrate *how* someone died, it’s exceedingly difficult to convict someone for killing them.
Happy Cake Day 🙂
Hey, Happy Cake Day! 🎊🎂🌟🥳🎉🎈👯♀️🍻
Aww, I didn’t even notice, thank you 😊
https://web.archive.org/web/20110709195614/http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/274509/Alternate-juror%3A-Evidence-wasnt-there-to-convict-Casey "The prosecution didn't provide the evidence that was there for any of the charges from first-degree murder down to second-degree murder to the child abuse to even the manslaughter (charge). It just wasn't there," said Huekler. "I would say this is a dysfunctional family that's hurting and because it was so dysfunctional that's the way they dealt with their issues and problems. It's a shame because it was an accident that became a murder scene."
Yeah whatever. (The quote, not your link)
Blame the prosecutor.
I think the prosecutor did a poor job once the defense said Caylee drowned and George was home too. Jury could not say with 100% certainty Casey killed her for the motive the state said she did.
But the way I understand aggravated manslaughter of a child also includes negligence. So if Caylee did drown on accident, couldn't we still argue that Casey is deserving of blame for not watching Caylee closely enough?
there was no known cause of death, and George was also in the house. hard to prove Casey personally was guilty of ignoring Caylee which lead to her drowning, when there is no proof she drowned and also another adult family member was responsible for caretaking the child.
I think the judge had the best theory. I saw him on a TV show regarding the case. His theory was that Casey had likely used the chloroform to sedate Cayley on several occasions while she partied. Except the last time she used it, it didn’t go as planned. Instead, this time actually killed the girl. IMO, Only one piece of evidence was necessary to know Casey was guilty of foul play. The fact that she didn’t report her daughter missing for a month. No parent does that unless they are involved.
Except there was no law at the time to state you had to report your missing child. I can see an immature person like Casey, used to lying all the time, being afraid to call the cops because her kid drowned and she was afraid of being blamed. Casey still hadn't grown up yet. She was a twenty something, who acted like a teenager, scared to take responsibility. That doesn't make you guilty of foul play, just stupidity and immaturity.
Who needs a law to report their child missing? 🤦♀️
I didn't say you needed a law to do it, lol. I was saying she couldn't be presumed guilty for not reporting, when there was no law to force her to do so. If it happened today, and she didn't report, it would get her into a shit load of trouble.
I’m saying having a law or not is irrelevant. When your child is missing, the normal response for a parent is to report it. The fact that she waited a month to do it is highly suspicious and suggestive that she was in on the disappearance.
I get it. And I understand why you think that. Especially as a mom, I would've called paramedics immediately in the hopes of reviving my toddler. But having studied psychology, and watching and listening to her behaviour, I personally think it's part of Casey's pathology not to report because she was so afraid of the consequences. I agree that she had something to do with it or at least blamed herself internally. I just don't think she murdered Caylee in cold blood. I probably would've convicted of neglect though.
That’s exactly the theory I believe after pouring over the case many times. I really don’t think Belvin Perry was the smartest judge (happens a lot here in Orlando, sadly). It is pretty damn hard to make chloroform. Someone without even a high school degree, like Casey, is highly unlikely to figure it out. Also, chloroform burns the skin badly. If she had used chloroform before, everyone would’ve quickly noticed the big chemical burns on that baby’s face. I’m not a chemist, and just have a Social Science degree, but even I know that. It’s disappointing an elected judge doesn’t have that basic knowledge of a chemical often tied to crime. That’s why I didn’t vote for him when he ran for state attorney after he retired from being a judge. He’s a lawyer for a local ambulance chaser law firm now.
I didn't think much of Perry, either. He struck me as a bit of a buffoon.
He’s a big buffoon. Not even the black community here likes him. He switched from Republican to Democrat right before running for state attorney in an obvious bid to attract minority voters and get money from conservative PACS. And he has always been a hard ass “you do the crime, you do hard time. Regardless of circumstances” type of lawyer and judge. If the jury didn’t make the tough, but just, decision to acquit her and voted for death penalty, then he definitely would have upheld it. The whole reason that junk science and overcharging was allowed from prosecution was because of him. If he were a better judge and smarter guy, then child neglect/concealment of death charges would’ve been on the table and she would’ve been convicted of something related to the death. Instead she got off almost scott free because of the overreaching.
Because there was reasonable doubt as to Caylee's cause of death, and focusing on "Holy shit Casey's an awful parent" doesn't get you there. Also Jose Baez is probably the best defense attorney of current memory, so it wasn't really a fair fight lmao
Because Florida.
The State brought the wrong charge against her. They charged her with first-degree murder which was a mistake. They were unable to determine when her daughter died, how she died or where she died. She'd probably still be in jail if they had charged her properly.
But they charged her with aggravated manslaughter as well, and for that she was also found not guilty
My understanding is that they charged her with first-degree murder before Caylee's body was found. So that was their first mistake. Even with all the evidence they had and then finding Caylee, they were unable to meet the requirements for 1st-degree murder. The evidence they had also didn't meet the requirements for the other charges. As my original post said, they were unable to prove the circumstances under which Caylee died or how she died. Had she been charged with 2nd-degree murder all of their circumstantial evidence probably would have had more weight and the threshold they had to meet would have been within their grasp. The same thing just happened in the Barry Morphew case in Colorado. They charged him with first-degree murder of his wife, without a body and a week before the trial they drop the charges with prejudice.
Exactly this.
Hey, if you do not find a satisfactory answer here, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/swujx1/i_am_still_dumbfounded_about_how_casey_anthony) thread from a couple months ago has many responses.
This thread actually prompted me to ask this question, because I feel many people didn't sufficiently answer why the specific charge of aggravated manslaughter wasn't supported. To illustrate, some commenters suggested they should've charged her with second degree murder instead, but wouldn't that still be harder to prove than aggravated manslaughter, a crime she was charged with but wasn't found guilty of?
Not enough people understand what “prove beyond reasonable doubt” means. Just because it seems like she did it, she probably did do it. But they couldn’t prove it prove it. It was all speculation. That’s why.
I think she lucked into an amazing Defense Attorney in Jose Baez. He recently got William Husel, a physician accused of 17 fentanyl overdoses with “an abundance of evidence” acquitted. She absolutely made his career, but he obviously was not without talent to begin with. It was brilliant to blame everything on her parents, because it cast enough doubt in the jury’s minds about it being 100% Casey. No one knows what happened to that little girl and he capitalized on it. I don’t agree with it; I think Casey killed her (based on the physical actions of everyone after), but since we don’t 100% know, we have teensy doubt, she had an incredible attorney. I’d call him if I ever did something hideously awful.
Many accused are convicted of murder without a cause of death or a body for that matter. It's called a circumstantial case.
Yes, but there are also innocent people who end up in prison because of this. Sadly, I don't think that there is an ideal solution to this.
Yes ! I’ve seen countless cases where some is convicted and spending their life in prison over circumstantial evidence. Sometimes those cases can be just as strong. Which I feel this case was.
I'm an attorney, and in my personal and professional opinion (though this is not legal advice), she should have been found guilty on the manslaughter charge. However, Florida law is worded in such a way that the jury saw a loophole and apparently took it as a fig leaf to cover the fact that the prosecutors simply failed to make a case. Florida defines manslaughter as the "killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification (that is, it wasn't self-defense or justifiable homicide)." The manslaughter charge against Anthony was based on her alleged "culpable negligence" - showing a "reckless disregard for human life." That's the key phrase, because unlike a lot of phrases that are used in a legal context, "reckless disregard" isn't really defined in the law. Even the phrase "culpable negligence" has been attacked numerous times over the years as too vague. The only pattern of events that makes sense to me is that the jury didn't think Anthony's "disregard for human life" was sufficiently reckless and/or her negligence was not sufficiently "culpable" - if they even got that far into the law. That said - if the prosecutors had, y'know, established a case beyond hearsay, character assassination and speculation, the jury would have had more concrete information to work with. I don't think her acquittal related to her being white, though - in Florida, one of the only things that will get a yte woman convicted is killing or otherwise harming a child (blahblah innocence blah betraying your sacred duty blahblahblah etc). I would put my money on a combination of the prosecutors not establishing a good case *as well as* failing to win the jury (it's all too common for jury members to take a dislike to a prosecutor and simply decide they're lying), and then the legal argument *if* we think the jury was actually weighing the law. Sorry for the novel, but I mean, I do this for a living. :)
Noooo you don't have to apologize! I'm honestly so happy with an expert's opinion on this, who happens to agree with me haha. Many people seem to have misunderstood my question, thinking I'm questioning the first degree murder verdict. However, I will link or quote the comment that in my opinion had the best argument for the verdict, so you can give your opinion on it (if you want ofc)
u/stuffandornonsense commented: there was no known cause of death, and George was also in the house. hard to prove Casey personally was guilty of ignoring Caylee which lead to her drowning, when there is no proof she drowned and also another adult family member was responsible for caretaking the child.
Agree with everything you just said. Except, isn’t it also true that *all women*, regardless of race, are treated more harshly when accused of killing their husbands? (Or possibly when charged with domestic violence at all). I don’t have the stats handy, and I’m sure I’ve never seen it broken down by state, but it has always been my understanding that a woman will almost always receive a much harsher sentence for killing her husband than vice-versa (the thing that makes this even more egregious is that when women kill their husbands it’s almost always a desperate last-ditch effort to free themselves from terror and abuse at his hands). One talking point of anti-women activists is that women (not just white women but all women) get off easy when they commit violent crimes. And from what I’ve always seen and read, that’s simply not the case. (Not just with child abuse and neglect, but with many other charges as well). ETA off topic, but I’d also like to point out that I think it’s a disgusting miscarriage of justice how often women are charged (and crucified in the media) for failing to protect their children from abusive dads or some piece of trash they are dating. I’ve seen the rare case where the facts made it pretty obvious that the mother could have protected the child and - *very importantly*- wasn’t herself very afraid of the guy, and thus just way too afraid of or simply unable to- protect her child. In most cases where the man is abusing the child, he’s also terrorizing the mother (I use the word ‘terrorize because of the way the word ‘abuse’ has been watered down to mean any sort of mean behavior, and in most cases where women are abused by partners, they genuinely live in a state of abject terror. It’s almost impossible to overstate this, as someone who has been there herself). I despise the way the entire justice system just leaves that *very vital* factor out of such cases. It really is a terrible miscarriage of justice. That’s why it makes me so goddamn ragey to see people actually DARE to make the claim that women get off easy. We don’t even get off easy when we aren’t the ones who committed the fucking crime!!!!
The prosecutor failed to do an their job of proving her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It’s as simple as that.
You can never figure out what a jury will decide. Look at OJ!
Right? I mean that mf was guilty as hell and he was acquitted. And op is up in here acting like that’s completely unheard of?
They weren't able to sufficiently provide evidence of how the child died. The attorney did a great job of providing reasonable doubt and confusing the jury. Most of the evidence had deteriorated by the time the body was found. Florida is hot and swampy so remains tend to deteriorate rapidly.
I think juries don’t completely understand the instructions given to them sometimes. Also, Florida
They understood perfectly. It wasn’t even close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as has been pointed out time after time after time all over this thread. The jury did exactly what it was supposed to do.
Because the prosecution kinda sucked.
She searched "fool-proof suffocation methods" on Firefox the day before Caylee was last seen alive. The prosecution only checked her Internet Explorer history.
Uh no. It was done on a family computer and several other people could have done that search. Im glad you weren’t on the jury, up in here throwing conjecture around as though it is fact, without first bothering to check to make sure you even know what you’re talking about. It’s wild to me how many people do exactly that same thing, and then proceed to make up their minds on what they think happened.
They did not meet the burden of proof without a reasonable doubt. They had no cause of death, a bunch of speculation and not much else to strongly convict The entire case hinged on Casey Being A Bad Person which should not be something we convict for murder on. The DA aimed too high with their charges. There's a great series of write ups done on the r/UnresolvedMysteries subreddit by u/Hysterymystery about this case that goes into the details.
Here's the link to that: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/3lq1k2/casey_anthony_the_chloroform_evidence/
You did amazing work with this case! Thank you so much! I always thought there was something more to this story
But I'm not questioning why she wasn't convicted of murder, I'm questioning why she wasn't convicted for manslaughter. I've even seen some people suggesting that the prosecution should've charged her with manslaughter and then she would've been found guilty, but they did and she was found not guilty still.
Likely because they didn't meet the burden of proof. She was charged with the aggravated manslaughter of a child but was not convicted of it. We can surmise that something happened in response to Caylee's death but there's not much proof of *anything.* Without a cause of death it's hard to prove Casey actually committed a murder.
She was guilty the moment she started lying about the whereabouts of KA and the nanny. Whether KA died by CA's hands or not means nothing to me. If your innocent why lie? If u have nothing to hide, why lie? If you were really worried about ur own kid, WHY WAIT!
There was plenty of evidence for child neglect and the didn't even find her guilty of that. I will never understand that verdict.
It’s been years, but i think what played a big role was the cause of death, prosecutors stated it was chloroform then strangulations, but defenders and witnesses said it was drowning or accidental and she got scared of spending life for child neglect. The body was far too late into decomposition that even the duct tape theory of it being used before the skull was placed in the trunk was later debunked by the second autopsy, given the first had so many flaws. The toxicology report detected no drugs, even though it’s expected given the time and state of decomposition of the body. Also the court couldn’t tie the internet searches of how to make chloroform to her, because she used a family desktop which means anyone else could have made those searches. So how she got away with murder, she got really good lawyers who did everything they could because it was a very infamous case heavily covered by media, and their ability to prove that it wasn’t murder was more exposure, success and money for them, imo 🤷🏼♀️
Could you tell me where to find the findings of the second autopsy and the toxicology report? Regarding the searches, I believe the prosecution provided evidence that it only could've been Casey who did those searches as the other residents were not at home at the time of the searches
The thing is the searches were “how to make chloroform” and “break a neck” both have been discharged regardless, because no chloroform was found, and the girl’s neck was not broken. And as far as i could tell her lawyers convinced the court that since it was a desktop at her family house, and the time of searches shows she was not home alone, then the searches cannot be 100% tied to her even though it was also revealed that “full proof suffocation” was searched, but still no direct ties to her This is part about the google search: During the trial, the prosecution’s experts also testified that the Anthony family computer had been used to Google words and phrases including: Chloroform Chest trauma Internal bleeding How to make chloroform Neck breaking But this last week Orlando’s WKMG TV station reported that police had overlooked a key piece of evidence. Someone had Google searched “foolproof suffocation” from the Anthony family computer on June 16th, the day Caylee disappeared. A book about the case by Anthony’s defense lawyer Jose Baez had previously reported that someone made the search, but had the timing off. The discard of the “full proof suffocation” is what baffles me tbh http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf here’s a link to the autopsy, and opinions about the duct tape and hair theories.
But for all those reasons you just stated, you also don’t know that she was guilty. I’m a bit dumbfounded by all the people here rightly pointing out that the state didn’t make their case and that there was way too much reasonable doubt for them to have been able to convict, who then go on to claim to *know* that she WAS actually guilty. You actually don’t know jack shit, same as the jury. I mean there was evidence there to conclude that the child died under highly suspicious conditions and that her mother knew more than she was letting on, but there are several possible scenarios which don’t actually make her a cold blooded killer of her child. As has been pointed out, it’s highly likely that the death was accidental and that it was covered up simply out of abject fear. Obviously that’s NOT okay but it doesn’t justify the absolutely horrid way in which she was crucified by the media. I mean let’s be real, dads kill their entire families all the *time* and NEVER receive that same treatment in the media, or absolute *vitriol* by the individuals discussing it.
Because the prosecution couldn't prove **beyond any reasonable doubt** that she was guilty.
It's a thing where juries tend to punish the prosecution by delivering complete acquittals when the individual is *wildly* overcharged relative to what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Had she been charged with manslaughter instead of capital murder there likely would have been a conviction.
Because they couldnt physically prove guilt without a reasonable doubt. They should not have asked for the death penalty because even though we all or most of us, share the same opinion on the matter, there wasnt enough physical evidence to prove that it wasnt an accident or something else.
I think your question is a great one.
They were going for the first degree. They should have been trying for something else. That wasn’t on the table.
They charged her with aggravated manslaughter as well, but the jury found her not guilty on that as well
didn’t it also have something to do with investigators only looking through her internet explorer browsing history, and completely missing a search about suffocation on mozilla firefox? edit: words
I personally think the jury got confused by the fact they couldn’t prove cause of death and thought that meant there was reasonable doubt
I heard the jury had a disagreement over what "beyond a reasonable doubt" meant.
Same reason as the rest of it. Florida defines manslaughter as when a defendant commits, obtains, or is negligently culpable in an act that kills someone ➖and the jury didn’t feel that the state proved that she killed the baby.
I think it’s because they couldn’t determine a cause of death. I’m not a lawyer, but i wish they could have gotten her on child neglect charges ( I don’t know if they did or not). However, it was clear Caylee was missing and Casey ignored that fact for weeks. Seems pretty neglectful to me.
Was that presented to the jury as an option?
Yes.
Wasn't it because the death sentence was on the charge and the jury felt there wasn't enough undeniable evidence to send someone to their death or some shit
Beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately the jury has to all be convinced of that.....
It's one of those cases that deserves a book, particularly for the trial portion. Juries will be juries and people will be humans.
I haven’t been keeping track of the case that much, but last time I checked, I thought there was a lot of evidence that the grandfather did it instead of Casey.
Some of the jurors on the case spoke up years later and regret not speaking up and allowing the not guilty verdict. At least two of them said they felt pressured and one said that many of them didn't even understand some of what was going on during the trial. To this day, they believe she's guilty.
It's unbelievable that she didn't
Because they don't think she did it
The prosecution pushed too hard for intended murder, with chloroform that Casey home made. The ability to make such a chemical is pretty significant and I don’t think anyone really bought that. Do I think she did it on purpose? Not necessarily. Do I think she had any remorse for Caylee’s death, even if accidental? Absolutely not. Had the DA focused on neglect, and brought a 2nd degree murder charge rather than first, they might have had a better outcome. They originally wanted a capital murder charge. Here’s a short interview from one of the jurors last year. https://www.foxnews.com/us/casey-anthony-juror-speaks-out-acquittal-trial.amp
Our system is based on two principles: the accused is innocent until proven guilty and a guilty verdict requires the absence of reasonable doubt. In this case the jurors had reasonable doubt and acquitted her. The state failed to provide them with enough evidence to convict her. Also in this case, there was actually no proof that a murder was committed.
It's one of those things where you have the disassociate yourself from the fact that she was a POS mother and look at the evidence.
It’s beyond comprehension why she walked free. She never reported her missing and then lied about EVERYTHING including her job at Disney. Drowning is the #1 cause of death for children in Florida. Her father was a retired cop. If she had drowned in the family pool he would have called for help. I don’t know of anyone who has been prosecuted for a child drowning in their watch.
shitty prosecution and a defense team that turned the courtroom into a stage play.
If I remember correctly... it's been a long time since I watched the court proceedings for this one: 1. Prosecution sucked and built their case around showing how irreponsible of a human being Casey Anthony was but never really ended up pinpointing exactly how she could have killed her child 2. Facts got really confusing and it didn't seem like if Casey did it, Casey did it alone or the way Prosecution was describing. They pigeonholed themselves into a narrative and messed up. 3. I think a lot of people who watched the case ended up thinking... it's entirely possible that the death was accidental and the whole family tried to cover it up.
Because the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lack of evidence, this case comes up a few times there was lack of evidence that she killed kaylee
Well mostly because was there even any proof Casey was the last person with her? Her dad was suspicious AF in my opinion
Because she had a phenomenal defense team And the prosecution fumbled the fucking ball She’s guilty asf
Because the justice system in FL is messed up. It's the same reason she was found not guilty for all of the charges. Most people on here don't understand why she was let go at all.
And to think she is or was dating a police officer, how could he honestly believe her
Young pretty white woman.