jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (11 posts)

Casey Anthony case

  1. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 6 years ago

    I have been watching the case on tv and the news commentaries and have my opinions about it. It would be difficult for me to be impartial as a juror since there has been so much publicity about it on the news. Who do you believe? The prosecutor or the defense?

    1. profile image47
      mike moeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      why is it that every time jose baez ask a question the state objects an wins the objection..the specialist that took the stand today should of never been up on the stand..there is not 1 scientist in the u.s that can say he knows what he is saying.not one testamony so far show me that she is guilty yes she is guilty of lying to the police but of murder no way.not one person that has not been through something like this before knows what they would do in a situation like she was put into.

  2. SueShepard profile image58
    SueShepardposted 6 years ago

    I thought I had it all figured out before the trial started...good thing I wasn't chosen as a juror. Then when the defense started with that story about her father and brother.... I don't know. I don't believe the drowning theory and I don't know if I believe the molestation of Casey theory. If she is that sick to kill her child, she probably doesn't have a problem with lying about the dad and brother.

    It basically boils down to either she is the sole sick individual or the whole family is a bunch of twisted people. No one else did this outside of the family.

  3. qwark profile image58
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    I'm glad I'm not a juror in her trial!
    In my world, to hurt a child is a crime that, if the perp is found guilty, he/she should suffer the aame pain and suffering the child suffered.
    If a child is killed, the perp should be destroyed in the same manner he/she killed the child.
    Don't call that barbarism!
    It'd be JUSTICE!

  4. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    I don't believe the defense.
    All they need to create is a "shadow of doubt" whereas the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
    Admittedly, I am not impartial (glad, like the rest of you guys, I'm not on the jury!).
    From the previous news coverage of the mom, she was way more into partying than mothering.
    But I agree, it was an inside job (within the family) and anyone who murders a child should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

  5. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 6 years ago

    I recently came up with a possible theory...since Caylee was almost three ,she was beginning to talk .

    In the trial,one of her boyfriends,(cant remember his name) claimed that Casey and Caylee stayed overnight and slept in the same bed.

    The little girl was bound to tell on Mommy soon and reveal that she was not staying with 'Zannie" the nanny.

    Also I think Zannie may be short for Xanax..or some drug ,as a news commentator hinted at possible drug use..

    anyway its's very sad..sad

  6. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    Too many lies.....she was directly involved or got her self involved with the people who utltimately did this. I suspect the former. I think she got into the habit of "drugging" her daughter in order to have time for partying. I think she is guilty of the charges. No matter what, she will never tell the truth....

  7. Rafini profile image90
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    Her story keeps changing - when you tell the truth there's only one story to tell.

  8. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 6 years ago

    i think her attorney should have kept her defense simple and said she was mentally ill .instead of dragging her poor parents,friends and imaginary friends and brother into this mess!

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The defense hasn't even put up a case yet. They go last, after the Prosecution rest. They have given an outline of their case during the opening arguments. Specifically that they believe that the child died of accidental drowning. Afterward the mother and grandfather hid the body. The imaginary friends have been brought to light by the Prosecution, not the defense. However this may be part of the overal defense strategy. The defense may be playing their hand two ways. First provide alternate theories(i.e. she drowned). Then when the prosecution brings out her bizarre behavior...they say.."See even the prosecution thinks she's crazy"!

      Here is what I'm starting to wonder about. She has made the claim of sexual abuse by both her father and brother. The child's name was "Calee" See the connection? Her name is "Casey" and her brother's name is "Lee". Would if Calee was their child??!! Would if the Defense is planning on asking for a DNA sample from the brother? If they have had any type of sexual relations during the time that Calee was born, the brother will refuse...this will open a whole other can of worms.....

  9. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 6 years ago

    way to obvious that she did it, jose beaz is doing all he can to prove she didnt but its not working