• Facebook
  • Twitter
KQµårk 死神 On July - 3 - 2011


Since closing arguments are going to be presented this morning I thought it would be a good idea to see where Planet members fell on the Casey Anthony verdict.  I have to admit that watching our justice system in progress for “crimes of the century” cases like these are a guilty pleasure for me, no frivolousness intended.

First let me say I think Casey Anthony is guilty of 1st degree murder whether it’s through premeditated murder or 1st degree based on aggravated child abuse.   However I would not say this is a death case because there are mitigating circumstances and I personally only believe in death cases where the worst of the worst atrocities have been committed like in multiple murder cases or acts of terrorism.

I do not expect everyone to agree because I understand how the evidence in this case could be interpreted different ways.  I happen to believe strong circumstantial cases are better than some direct evidence cases, especially cases that are based solely on eye witness testimony because circumstantial cases require many more pieces of evidence that make up a mosaic where if one piece does not fit you still get most of the picture.

Even though a circumstantial case does not have to rely on one or two pieces of evidence the prosecution needs indisputable evidence that is the foundation of their case that prove things like means, motive and opportunity.   There are a few pieces of evidence in the Caylee Anthony murder that just could not be explained away by the defense.

Opportunity:  Casey Anthony was the last person to see Caylee alive.  The trunk of her car definitely contained the decaying body of Caylee Anthony for time enough to develop a smell which was corroborated by several witness and canines to be that of a dead body.  The reason the defense put forward that it was only decomposing garbage was because anyone who has smelled the smell of a decomposing body knows what it is.  The 31 days that Casey Anthony was ducking her parents were damaging in different ways but first of all it gave her a huge window of opportunity to commit and cover up the crime was a big part.

Motive:  Casey Anthony wanted to hit the “reset button” so she could start her life over again without the responsibility of having a child.  My wife actually came up with this phrase years ago for pathological narcissists who wish to take out every person that they find as a burden in their lives so they can live the “Bella Vita” (Beautiful Life), which just happens to be the tattoo Casey Anthony got after Caylee was killed.

Motive (part deux):  Drinking, Stripping, Stealing, Screwing and Tattooing.  People grieve differently that is true but in the Caylee Anthony case she was not suppose to be dead only kidnapped.  At least that is the story Casey Anthony lied about amongst her plethora of lies.  Still Casey Anthony’s behavior showed she was a complete narcissist in every way possible.  Prosecution does not need to prove motive but it seemed pretty obvious to me.

Means:  I have no doubt that the manner of death was murder whether it was an accidental murder or not it was murder.  I thought Dr. G’s testimony that 100% of child drownings were reported to 911 was truly damning with regards to Casey Anthony’s behavior.  There is simply no way Caylee died in an innocent drowning accident that unfortunately happens in that area far too frequently.  The defense’s flimsy case of showing that this family was too dysfunctional to report a simply drowning fell on deaf ears when the fact is 100% of previous drowning accidents are reported.  You would have to believe that in 100% of these other cases there was not one dysfunctional family that DID report a child drowning.

Means (part deux):  The chloroform searches were the final nail in the proverbial coffin for me.  Sure Cindy Anthony, her mother, lied because she knew the searches, especially the search “how to make chloroform” showed intent.  Intent for Casey Anthony to at least drug her daughter to get her to go to sleep or to incapacitate her to murder her.  In either case it’s murder one because it would be aggravated child abuse at least and intentional murder at most which both lead to the same punishment.  All the talk of duct tape being around Cayee’s mouth just reinforces the case for murderous intent but it really is not a necessary part of the case.

There were many other small pieces of evidence with varying importance but to a reasonable person all roads lead to Casey Anthony unless you had a bias to make excuses for her.  This case reminded me very much of a case you folks on the West Coast are more familiar with, the trial of Scott Peterson.  That was a case where Scott Peterson hit the “reset button” before his pregnant wife could drop her baby.  There were a lot of evidentiary similarities as well.  The State had proven the manner of death was murder but they never knew the cause of death either and he was convicted and sentenced to death anyway.  Like the Scott Peterson case much of the jury convicted him because of the way he conducted his life after the loss of the victim.  Like I said I do not think the Casey Anthony case is a death case because there are more mitigating circumstances than aggravating circumstances.

Having watched a good part of the defense case on a personal level I am left utterly disgusted.  Sure a defense should produce a vigorous defense but the way Casey let the defense destroy her family by putting her brother and parents on the stand over and over again just reinforces how narcissistic this woman is.  It is bad enough Casey never ever told anyone what really happened to Caylee.  One point I did not hear Casey Anthony apologist bring up when they defended Casey’s lies because they said she learned how to lie from her parents was how come Lee Anthony was not a liar?  Lee Anthony being raised by the same parents obviously grew past them so that shows all the lies are in Casey’s character by choice.  I totally disregard the shallow apple does not fall far from the tree argument.  I saw the Anthony family as a family that was not perfect but in extreme grief because they had to endure the tremendous loss of a granddaughter and niece.  While at the defense table I just did not see a grieving mother but a mother who wanted to get off and who only showed emotion when it looked bad for her or when her future reality crept in her mind.

As kind of a side story.  One of the strangest parts of this case for my wife and I is we knew one person who was partying with Casey Anthony in Jacksonville, FL.  To our shock when all those pictures came out showing Casey Anthony partying in those 31 days, we saw a picture of her dancing with a group of young woman and we saw Xenia (name changed to protect her innocence).  My wife use to work with this single mother Xenia and she could never get her car running so my wife would bring her to work.  Well we got to know her and her son a little because we use to go to clubs in Jacksonville back then to listen to different bands in the area.  When my wife had surgery and she was out of work for a while we actually lent her our second car so she can get to work.  Besides seeing her dancing with Casey Anthony’s group the other reason I bring this up is because this is the first time we heard about single mothers who drug their children to put them to sleep.  Xenia use to use baby strength Benedryl but one time she curiously mentioned that some single mothers use Xanax on their children.  In fact that’s the first time my wife and I heard the term “Xanny the Nanny”.   We never knew if this single mother of a two year old at the time ever used Xanax on her todder but even at the time we found this comment curious.  For other reasons the State of Florida’s child services department had been “tracking” Xenia so we hoped she was being monitored for such behavior but I admit now we may have reported the conversation.

I do not see how you cannot have empathy for single mothers.  We did a lot more for Xenia because we saw what a burden it was because like Casey Anthony she was very young and of course raising a young child is very difficult even if a couple is doing it.

Most of all I do not want to get Nancy Grace with this but we should remember who the victim was here.  A perfect little toddler who deserved a lot more.

Categories: Justice, News & Politics

Written by KQµårk 死神

My PlanetPOV contact is [email protected] Proud Dem whose favorite hobby is cat herding. The GOP is not a political party, it's a personality disorder. Cancer, Heart Failure and Bush Survivor.

108 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. jkkFL says:

    My final comment as well.. Casey got by with murder and walks 7/13.
    I only wish it had been Friday the thirteenth.
    The State is poised to file charges for investigative costs; and I hope they soak her- which I think they will.
    At least, if they do- she may wind up with a lot less that she would have. Coupled with the civil case brought by Zaniada Frenandez-Gonzalez which will cost her another piece of the pie, My greatest hope is that she will have Nothing in the end..

    • KQuark says:

      X2 and my last word. I was thinking this morning. The worst part is she gets exactly what she wanted when she murdered Caylee and more, no responsibilities and an easy way to get rich.

      All we can hope is she is as self destructive as OJ and that van ders sloot character. I just hope it does not cost another child their life.

      • jkkFL says:

        Judge Perry has decided to charge her under the 4 false statements to Law enforcement.. she will be billed for all time spent on the search, as well as any O/T incurred. Texas Equisearch will be suing her for about $125,000 as well, and she has a top notch lawyer going after her in the civil case!
        She may get out, but my guess is she’s facing an invoice of close to $1M..which will have to be paid first!! Unless she makes a Big Bundle; she ain’t gonna be livin too high!

  2. Chernynkaya says:

    OK, this will probably be my last link about the trial. From Marcia Clark, of OJ fame:

    “Worse Than O.J.!
    While the stunning Casey Anthony acquittal defied logic, O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark details how juries often delude themselves—and why this verdict trumps even her case.”


    • Khirad says:

      There were actually a lot of funny tweets to this effect.

      Which is horrible, I know. It’s not funny. But I laughed. What else can you do?

  3. texliberal says:

    This is the price you pay in a system that presumes the innocence of criminal defendants until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But I can’t think of a better way.

  4. ADONAI says:

    This is not a defeat for our system of justice. Only a defeat for the state of Florida. Under this same system someone believed guilty, who is actually innocent, will walk free.

    I still believe we have the best justice system in the world. But it’s not perfect. And it never will be. It will disappoint, it will confound, but it will also deliver justice as it has many times before.

    • SallyT says:

      Yes, Adonai, it will. Justice for all. Sometimes that “all” includes the lowest of low but still the scales must and will balance for that “all” is the purpose.

  5. jkkFL says:


  6. Chernynkaya says:

    ABC News exclusive: Casey Anthony Juror: ‘Sick to Our Stomachs’ Over Not Guilty Verdict


    • KQuark says:

      If it came down to cause of death they are all complete idiots because the cause never needed to be proven just the manner of death. If cause of death was required Scott Peterson and anyone where the body was decomposed would walk free. It’s especially absurd when you consider how many cases are proven beyond a reasonable doubt when the body is not even found. The jury got snowed pure and simple.

      I’m sure jkkFL and I are not trying to shoot the messenger it’s just our collective outrage over the verdict.

    • jkkFL says:

      Cher- that’s bullshit! They didn’t have to let her walk- she failed to report that child ‘missing’ for 31 days. They had options..

      •Aggravated manslaughter of a child: Maximum of 30 years in prison.

      •Aggravated child abuse: Maximum of 30 years in prison.

      The foreperson of the jury had a home rented in the UK starting 7/7.
      Had they convicted, they would have had to remain in Orlando until 7/7!
      They started out with a hung jury-6-6..
      There is already a bill called Caylee’s law, that will make not reporting a missing child immediately a felony.

  7. KQuark says:

    Simply a travesty of justice. I can see not finding her guilty of 1st degree murder. But there was no doubt that child was murdered and she was the only one who could have done it.

    I think it was a combination of things including the CSI effect where everyone thinks every case should have direct evidence or DNA evidence. I also think jurors were snowed by the bunch of lies the defense spouted during their opening statements and never even considered the prosecutions case. It’s common for people not to understand what reasonable doubt is. Just like you are not suppose to speculate evidence you are not suppose to speculate doubts either.

    I’m not surprised though because too many people in this country like to believe a good conspiracy rather than using their basic common sense.

    • choicelady says:

      KQ -- I think two things can co-exist that may have led to this verdict. I think she may NOT be guilty of murder, that Caylee did indeed drown in the pool and the body hidden, AND Casey was desperately relieved by that fact. Guilty possibly of gross negligence, guilty of not loving Caylee, guilty of being a shallow and narcissistic person, but not necessarily guilty of killing her child.

      As in the Australian case (“the dingo ate my baby”), the mother did not behave appropriately by our standards in society. I gather she was a very religiously-conservative person who showed NO emotion which caused people to distrust her, to think she was cold and thus guilty of harming her daughter. It was conclusively shown that the dingo DID take the baby, but not until the woman spent time in prison.

      Rush to judgement because we so dislike the accused? I don’t know. I tend to trust juries on innocent verdicts especially when done so in the face of so much social pressure to convict.

      But it’s over now. For us anyway. It will never be over for Casey.

    • SallyT says:

      I don’t know if it was a Miscarriage of Justice as that usually refers to the defendent being found guilty when innocent but I guess it can be used the other way too. I think it is more an Error of Impunity. That is when the ruling results in criminals either remaining at large or receiving sanctions that are below a socially optimal level.

      Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on “a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.”

      Even with that many innocent people have been found guilty and years later DNA not examined originally or reexam have found that they were actually innocent

      I am not defending this young lady by no means, I have my own opinion. But, I am defending our country’s laws that allow us to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right to a jury trial. Your life is in their hands in some case and I would hope that if they had any doubt that they would rule for life than against it. (As the Supreme Court ruled, when we apparently had a smarter one then than we do now.)

      • KQuark says:

        I respect your opinion. The problem is reasonable doubt is a human legal standard and humans are imperfect. You could line up the 10 best legal minds in the country and they would all come up with different definitions of reasonable doubt so the standard itself may be the best we have but far from optimum.

        Usually I find when people are wrongly convicted it’s more a case of bad evidence. In any circumstantial case a juror can find reasonable doubt if they fail to understand the big picture and focus on little doubts. That’s exactly my opinion of what the jury did here.

        It turned into a case where the family was put on trial forcing them to testify 19 times in total. I’m sure most families would crumbly under that microscopic examination especially considering they were under as much stress as the defendant.

        • jkkFL says:

          Perhaps Casey is going to bed tonight with visions of movie and book deals in her head; and fantasies of running away with Jose when they’re rich- but the mood in Central Florida is anything but acceptance of the verdict.
          Lee was conspicuously absent in court today, and one blogger remarked it would be George and Lee against Cindy and Casey.
          Casey Anthony is Never going to live in Central FL. again. The entire region is furious at the jury; Jose Baez/J. Cheney Mason, Cindy and Casey.
          Death threats continue..
          A Facebook poll shows 88-92% reject the jury’s verdict.
          She will quickly find out No one is waiting to welcome her home.

        • SallyT says:

          KQ, again, I am not defending her but the jury. If I was on the jury, I could have had doubt on whether the little girl was killed or it was an accident in drowning. There was no proof of how the sweet little thing died. They could not prove if she did drown or was smothered. No proof that she was chloroformed. And, there was proof given that choloroform is a common ingredient in many household cleaning products. The duct tape found with the body, the prosecutors could not show proof it was ever on the body. (They use a computer generated picture showing how it could have been on the body but not that it actually was.) There was no DNA on the tape of either the mother or the child. There was no one that testified that the mother had ever shown any abuse against the child. The grandparents were always available to babysit, so that doesn’t appear to have been a problem. Yes, I would have questioned why she was out at clubs while the daughter was supposely missing. But does that prove she killed her? (I never understood why my uncle didn’t cry at my aunts funeral.) Okay, that is just a few things that might have caused me to have some doubts. I don’t think I would have forcused only on the family stuff. And, I won’t be surprised that if the jury ever gives comments, they will say they didn’t either.
          I wouldn’t classify me as “not to bright”. Perhaps other may but I would classify me as someone that if on a jury (which I have been and was Forman) I would listen and study everything presented and if in doubt, I would rule accordingly.
          My main problem with all this is that too many times someone is tried in the media first without any evidence. And, if there is evidence whether or not sufficient, it is judged as proof with no evidence or arguments to the contrary because it doesn’t make good story for media purposes.

          • KQuark says:

            I think sometimes it’s an advantage when the defendant is tried in the media to be contrarian.

            The duct tape was holding the jawbone on the scull so it was proven to be on the face. They took it off to show the picture you mention.

            No DNA on the duct tape was classic misinterpretation of reasonable doubt in my opinion because there was a probability that DNA would not be present. Even the defense expert said that. We are talking about a swamp that was so biologically active that all the cotton in her shirt and the duct tape degraded so how the heck is DNA going to be present when it degrades faster than cotton?

            I understand your opinion. I’m just stating mine and showing how reasonable doubt can be speculated when jurors are confused.

            • SallyT says:

              KQ, and I understand your opinion, as well. I don’t know all the facts or how they were presented. I wouldn’t have relied on DNA alone either. Many things figure into this case and the jury knows more than I do or care to. I really have no true idea how I would have judged because I don’t have all the facts or how they were presented anymore than I understand how anyone could commit such a crime in the first place.

          • jkkFL says:

            Sally- there was no DNA because the baby’s body was mostly submerged in water in the swamp from July- late November.
            What about the three pieces of Private commercial duct tape nearly surrounding her entire head??
            The ME testified; ‘There is Never a reason to put duct tape on a child’s face- Living OR dead.’
            But that duct tape kept her mandible intact- which never happens in ‘normal circumstances.’
            Also, her L foot was never located- the animals carried it off.
            She also testified that in !00% of accidental deaths of a child, 911 was called- even if it was Obvious the child was dead..
            And for the Reality viewers;- Dr Garavaglia- the ME, is ‘Dr. G’ on Discovery health- she didn’t land a highly rated TV show by being stupid, ineffective, or sloppy!

            • SallyT says:

              jkkFL, I never thought or accused you have calling me stupid. I said I never called anyone stupid. And, I didn’t think the jury was stupid. Yes, you obviously have information from a local point of view. I did know that the there was a juror with a schedule cruise or something but I don’t believe that was a reason for the decision given. (Even if it was nonrefundable, I think they had a case for refund because of jury duty. I have know someone that was given a refund on a nonrefund because of such a issue.) One juror’s vacation won’t matter to the other 11 regardless if they were forman or not. Perhaps more light will be given to the decision if and when a juror speaks. Again, I am not defending the accused but just supporting the jury in their decision. And, that could change if I hear the jury say something that doesn’t make sense to me in their responding to what were the reasons for their decision. I have been known to change my mind…………

            • jkkFL says:

              I did not call You stupid, I said Dr G is Not stupid.
              I do not watch Dr G on a regular basis. I have had contact with her in a professional setting.
              A family member is also a CSI in OCSD, and worked at the ME’s office prior to Dr. G’s arrival.
              (Not involved with this case, however.)
              There was postmortem banding on one of the hairs found in the trunk.
              Post-mortem banding is displayed only in cases where the hair remained intact post the victims death, and is displayed only in maternal DNA.
              That Was shown in court.
              I Live in Orange Co. FL, and have followed it, both by choice (and involuntarily,) from the beginning, so I feel do have some knowledge of the issues.
              I am also familiar with weather conditions because I live less than 7 miles from the Anthony home.
              Were you aware the foreperson of the jury had a one month vacation scheduled in Great Britain beginning July 7??

            • SallyT says:

              jkkFL, I didn’t hear any such testimony given in the trial so I can not give you the answer from the otherside. I did hear that there was testmony that there still would have been DNA available around the body even with the exposure it was exposed to but none was proof of the mother being there. I do disagree that everyone with a TV show are qualified. And, I certainly didn’t call anyone “stupid”. I don’t agree with calling the jury stupid either. As I said and I am sure is true of you, we were not sitting in that court room. We did not hear everything. We have our opinions but we were not on the jury. The jury gave their verdict and I am defending their right to give it, whether I agree or not. I do not agree with anyone being charged in the press or on TV before their day in court. I have seen on a couple of other occasions where the TV show has been proven wrong in how they were protraying the facts. (One such case was the young girl kidnapped in Utah.) However, if you find entertainment in those shows, who am I to call you stupid? And, of course I haven’t and wouldn’t. If you feel I am because I am defending the jury, well, I disagree with that. :)

    • Chernynkaya says:

      Add to that, KQ, that a few members of the jury had been convicted of DUI, other misdemeanors and spousal abuse. I am amazed they weren’t excused, but who knows what the jury pool was in that county. I agree that jurors often misunderstand reasonable doubt--it doesn’t say NO doubt, but again, in a capital case, the bar is raised.

      Look, there is no doubt in my mind she did it. And I realize the jury could have convicted on lessor charges (thanks, jkk!).At the same time, whenever I caught the trial, I honestly felt both sides put on poor cases. There were so many lies from the parents too, so many theories thrown at the wall, such weak forensics, I think the jury was comprised of not-too-bright citizens. Plus, we know that the jury did not hear the same evidence that we did--some was disallowed.

      Yes, it was a miscarriage of justice. But you know what? I heard the DA at the interview say there are something like 40 pending child murder cases. I can only hope the DA does a better job with those. And to me, I would rather the justice system fail by failing to convict a guilty party than the opposite. Most times, I believe it works.

  8. Chernynkaya says:

    The verdict reached by the jury is Not Guilty of 1st degree murder. I admit I have only followed this occasionally, but as I did I kept thinking that the death penalty requires near-perfect evidence. The very fact that their was no forensic evidence as to the cause of death meant to me that the state should not have asked for execution. I believe Casey Anthony would have been found guilty of a lessor charge, like manslaughter--the state overreached. They had a circumstantial case and for a capitol crime, their evidence was really just too meager. If I had been on the jury, I could not have found her guilty of First Degree murder, even though I believe she did cause her daughter’s death. But as a matter of law--reasonable doubt--the death penalty was unattainable. And frankly, listening to the closing arguments, the prosecutors really didn’t make the case, IMO.

    • Artist50 says:

      There were two lesser murder charges they could have convicted her on. What I can’t help but wonder is if she is released on Thursday whether she will go home to her parents. I can’t imagine they are ready to take her back into their home after the things she has said about them and you know that they are aware that she is the only one who could have killed little Caylee. Can you imagine that reunion?

    • SallyT says:

      Cher, I agree with you that the Prosecutors mistake was in going for the death pently with the case and evidence they had to present. A lessor charge would have probably found her guilty, such as manslaughter. The jury took their job seriously and found as they saw the evidence or the lack there of. The case had much attention in the media and Nancy Grace’s show for a year and half. The public found no trial necessary because they had found her guilty. But, the public only hears the sensations of a trial and not all the facts. They hear the evidence of guilt but not the argument or facts that counter such evidence. The jury does. Too many times the media makes the story that will get the most attention for them. Many times attornies on TV say how the case should be tried if they had it but they don’t and they don’t have all the evidence regardless of what they say.
      In the OJ case, the prosecutors error was the trial for both the wife and the waiter/friend murders together. If they had done them separate, they probably would have got him found guilty on the second trial. But, to save money or whatever the reason they didn’t.
      Regardless of my opinion on this case, the jury’s opinion and decision is the one that counts. If it were a member or friend of mine in such a situation, I would pray that they have a jury that listen to the evidence presented in the trial and not that on TV, papers, or the internet.
      A little girl lost her life and nothing can bring her back. How, where or why was not answered with the evidence.

      • jkkFL says:

        The jury had 4 choices:
        Murder charge

        Possible findings:

        •Guilty of capital first-degree murder (premeditated).

        Sentence: Death by lethal injection or life in prison without possibility of probation.

        •Guilty of first-degree murder, non capital (premeditated).

        Sentence: Life in prison with possibility of probation.

        •Guilty of second-degree murder (no premeditation).

        Sentence: 16-3/4 years to life in prison with possibility of probation.

        •Guilty of manslaughter (didn’t mean for Caylee to die from her actions).

        Sentence: Up to 15 years in prison.

        •Not guilty

        Additional charges

        Regardless of verdict on murder, the jury must also decide on these charges:

        •Aggravated manslaughter of a child: Maximum of 30 years in prison.

        •Aggravated child abuse: Maximum of 30 years in prison.

        •False information to law enforcement regarding missing person: Four counts — up to one year for each count.

        At the Very Least she should have been indicted on Child abuse; she sure didn’t spend any time hunting for her- unless she expected to find her in one of the bars and clubs she partied in..while everyone else was looking for Caylee.

        • SallyT says:

          I stand corrected on the choices available to the jury. However, the choice was theirs bases on the evidence presented in the trial. I have a personal opinion of the young woman and even an opinion of her guilty or not. But, I did not set in on the trial or was I on the jury. I only know of the things I have seen on TV or read on the internet and listening to the closing arguments, and of course that is not everything. I am sure sooner or later, one of the jury will give a statement and give some explanation of why they went with not guilty. Like I said, it was theirs to find and my opinion is not one that matters.

    • jkkFL says:

      Cher- having watched Casey in action for 3 years; I have to disagree.
      The jury just threw Caylee Marie back in the swamp.
      and Casey gets to walk as early as this weekend.. On to the ‘Beautiful Life’ she successfully created.

  9. jkkFL says:

    How to get away with murder:Commit it in Orange Co. FL- with a jury from Pinellas Co….
    Caylee deserved Better Justice.

  10. Wolf Larsen says:

    Interesting take my friend. I am maybe the only person in America that hasn’t followed this trial. Seems just about everyone else I know is really caught up in it. So my take regarding her guilt or innocence is really based on what I have heard second hand.

    I use to be a strong advocate of cameras in the courtroom because given the miscarriages of justice this country has witnessed over the years I thought it would provide some sense of accountability among the participants and in most cases that is true.

    But in the sensational cases….the ones that many in society use for television ratings and material to further their prurient interests in the misfortune of others….televised trials can really compromise the proceedings and if not the legal rights of defendants than at least the social perception of their charges.

    I am sure Casey is guilty of some heinous act and probably will be found by a jury of her peers accordingly….but the nature of the proceedings and the circus that comes with the coverage…turns our legal system into entertainment and that is the problem in my eyes.

    The legal system seems to be going the way of our news coverage… 24 hour cycles that need to fill dead air with sensational content in order to attract viewers. Don’t get me wrong….I was GLUED to the tube when the OJ trial was on. Hell I knew the minutes better than the court reporter. But since then I have been able to see how murder is “glamorized” and pundits and experts make good livings out of arguing the case nightly. Progress I guess.

    However this trial comes out….a beautiful young child that deserved so much better is still dead. The mother is left to answer for her deeds if judged guilty and Nancy Grace and the rest of the judicial parasites will find another host with a dead child or a crawlspace full of death and the world will move on.

    In its wake will our judicial system be made better or worse by its presence? Hard to say….but I am sure the ratings will be through the roof….

    • jkkFL says:

      Hey Wolf- good to see you!
      I do believe the presence of cameras in the courtroom is an asset. First- it is rather educational; allowing people to learn the process of justice, perhaps making us better jurors.
      Second, in high profile cases it is an educational process- even for attorneys. I have a family member who is an attorney and she has watched as much as she could just to improve her argument and presentation of evidence skills.
      Third, we learn actual law limits and procedure. I certainly find the commentary by local attorneys fascinating- law is much more restrictive than one would think.
      Finally, I do not get my info from the legal beagles or the national BSers!
      Nancy and her friends are not mine, and her info is not what I’m looking for.
      Geraldo???? Who can accept Anything he says?!
      I personally plan to attend a future trial presided over by Chief Judge Perry; (the local joke is lawyers use LexisNexis, Good lawyers consult Chief Judge Perry!) He is a Master.

  11. whatsthatsound says:

    KQ, I don’t have a reply button down below, so placing this up top. I have never lived in any Scandinavian country, though often wish I had been born there. I’ve lived in New York, the S.F. Bay Area and Tokyo, all very cosmopolitan areas so I have talked to and made friends with numerous Swedes, Norwegians, etc. My view is that their “nanny state” is the closest thing on earth to a nation-sized entity putting the welfare of its people first, ahead of dog-eat-dog economic concerns.

    As one person commented on an article comparing the “Nordic Model” with the Irish Model, “people live in societies, not economies”.

    • KQuark says:

      I only ask because I worked for a Finnish company in my last job and met many Fins. They are very nice people but I never got the impression they were all that happy. The many times I asked them about their government and such they seemed to have as many complaints as we do just about different things, especially taxes.

      I think it’s kind of an apples and oranges thing when you compare Scandinavian countries to the US. First of all about 80% of their population’s ethnic background is the same while the US is extremely diverse. The fact is we have no one culture. Since the Cold Civil War is raging in the US and no end is in sight there simply is no one model I would recommend for the whole country. I frankly just don’t think their economic culture would fit most people’s attitudes in the US. Just like you can’t create democracy in a country like Iraq at the point of a gun you can’t push a cultural model on the US at the tip of a legislation pen. We really need to come up with more practical models that accommodate our unique diversity. I really think we are headed to a place where the culture including economic culture in states are more and more diverse. Vermont is the perfect example where they are adopting a different cultural model with healthcare and the environment.

      • whatsthatsound says:

        I get where you’re coming from, KQ. But I still think that most of the broader attributes of the Scandinavian model WOULD work, and be accepted, by the majority of Americans in every state, if it were given a chance to work.

        First of all, the notion that a nations economics exist to enrich the lives of the PEOPLE, rather than people existing to keep the economy rolling along, is something that only those at the very top would object to. Swedish CEOs make more than their employees, but not 400 times more.

        Second, a butter economy rather than a guns one. Scandinavians don’t love to pay taxes, but for the most part they willingly allow the government to take the lion’s share of what they earn because they see it working as the “nanny state” -- the health care, the daycare provisions, the maternity leave provisions, etc. If you’re a parent in Sweden or Norway, you are lucky. The government will actually HELP you raise your child, instead of telling you, “You’re pretty much on your own. If you can’t afford college for your kid, why not let him join the military? We’ll take care of him.”

        A recognition that Culture is part of life. It sounds absolutely insane to the Rand-influenced mindset of Rushbots, but yes, in Sweden and Norway, artists are fully subsidized. In the cold, hard, crass world of pure commerce/economics, those of us who choose creative fields are nearly guaranteed a life of struggle. And yet, paradoxically, it is the artists and creators who, collectively, leave the greatest impact on culture. So, by recognizing the inherent value of Art, to a SOCIETY, not an ECONOMY, the Scandinavian model makes it possible for its creators to create, instead of squeeze creative time in between the other jobs one has to do in order to survive. At a societal, rather than individual level, this actually makes sense, though it seems weird to those who believe that only things that sell have value.

        But like I wrote to Kes, the model is far from perfect, and needs to be adjusted. I just feel that it should be viewed as a “best practices” model that every other government can learn from and adopt.

  12. KQuark says:

    BSM any trial is real news whether it’s news you care about or not is beside the point. Frankly I’m disappointed in your condescending attitude and this was truly a case where no comment was better than you stating your personal value judgement on whether this is real news or not. This is not just a site about political views but all views that are of interest to it’s members. I would even say this if I did not originate this post. The last thing we want is to malign posters for commenting on a variety of topics. I have seen many articles on the Planet about sports, art, music, movies history, religion, science, social commentary etc… Just because you are not interested in a topic is no need to be so hostile.

    Not to mention that I did add my own commentary about a single mother I knew and the struggles of single mothers in general. Are they not important either? Personally I think dealing with the growing number single parent households is a big problem and supporting them better would make this country a much better place. Then maybe we won’t have so many tragic stories like this.

    • BlueStateMan says:

      Please… this is TABLOID NIRVANA.

      If Casey was a poor black woman, this would still be on page 35 below the fold.

      • KQuark says:

        The point is I would never leave a negative post to any poster including you just because I was not interested in the subject. I guess you just can’t understand how disrespectful that is.

      • Khirad says:

        It’s really hard to deny that point, and I’ll say it.

        Nobody else, but I will.

        Yeah, she’s an (alleged) child murderer with ears that are elvish, but she’s a kinda hot (especially after a couple cocktails, I imagine) party girl — who is white.

        That’s what drove a lot of this. Let’s not pretend. That and the soap opera details.

        Sure, there was Andrea Yates, but google ‘mother murders children’ and you’ll come up with far more hits than you’d imagine. And in the past couple years at that.

        This one made good television.

        Still, we can extract something useful from this, and we’re all entitled to a guilty pleasure here and there. I have my Bollywood Babes, as I’m often teased about.

        • KQuark says:

          I don’t follow every case but I have followed several in the past that have not gotten as much media coverage. I just don’t get the personal disrespect I received from BSM about a topic I picked to comment about especially when I added a personal comment.

          • Khirad says:

            As you can see, I’m clearly not attacking you here. You don’t even have to rationalize it with your interest in forensics, et al. Adonai has written charming articles about professional wrestling and cookies.

            We’re all entitled to a guilty pleasure here and there.

            • KQuark says:

              Bito I really don’t get the slight by BSM at all since I DID NOT just cut and paste the Casey Anthony story. It was really a comment about how I felt about the case AND how it reminded me of a real life single mother I knew who was photographed with her. I firmly believe authors should write about any topic they want to write about without snide remarks from other posters about the topics they chose. Just the fact I have to defend writing about a topic in itself is ridiculous.

            • KQuark says:

              Sorry I did not mean to leave that impression. I didn’t think you were attacking me at all. I was just saying I’m interested in other cases that don’t involve the media darling victims. In fact I would not have even written about the Casey Anthony case if I did not see the single mother I was talking about in a picture with her.

            • bito says:

              charming articles about professional wrestling and cookies.

              We’re all entitled to a guilty pleasure here and there.

              And “elvish ears” or “soap operas. Am I missing something in KQ’s post, perhaps I missed it?
              I think KQ raises many good points, none of them having to do with elvish ears.

              While I may agree with BSM that if it were a case involving a person of color and not being covered, KQ has brought up some good points that need to be addressed in our society.

    • jkkFL says:

      KQ- I agree with your comments- save one. This single mother had all the support and assistance she needed in the care of her child. The grandparents would have done Anything for this child- or for Casey, in assisting for the care of this child.
      Casey is a sociopath- you can’t fix that, without acknowledgement from the sociopath.
      She stole from her parents; she was convicted of 6 felony counts of uttering forged instruments, prior to her murder trial. (She stole her friend’s checkbook, and After she killed Caylee, went shopping to the limits of her friend’s bank balance.)
      This is not a failure of society, the family or the inability of the community to assist her in the upbringing of this child.
      This is cold, calculating, premeditated murder of the child who interfered with Casey’s desire to live the ‘Bella Vita’ as she interpreted it.

      • KQuark says:

        I agree with what you said. I’m pro choice so to me this was a case where a mother was probably forced to keep their baby because of pressure by her family because of their religious beliefs. That to me is the main reason we have so many single mothers who don’t want to be mothers. Unfortunately with GOP in charge of many state legislators abortion rights are being taken away more and more and will make the problem worse. So that’s my issue.

        • jkkFL says:

          KQ- I am pro-choice also, and it doesn’t appear to be that issue either- everyone seemed happy, except Lee who claimed he was ‘shut out of the process.’
          As much as I respect your perspective, there is no discernible motive to explain her action, other than sociopathy, and total narcissism.

          • KQuark says:

            From what I heard George wanted to keep the child while Casey and Cindy wanted to put her up for adoption.

            In fact the single mother I knew wanted to give up her baby too but her parents insisted she keep it.

            • jkkFL says:

              hmmm.. well, Caylee was born early, and Cindy was the decorator of that elaborate Winnie-the-Pooh bedroom, so she must have had a quick change of heart.
              The room was totally complete before Casey brought Caylee home from the hospital..

      • Khirad says:

        Yeah, that was my one problem too. She was not wanting in the help department. She is as you point out, just a spiteful bitch, and proud of it.

  13. jkkFL says:

    K- y’all.. I have been living this case for 3 years. Here is my interpretation, FWIW.
    She is a pathological liar; and a sociopath.
    As she put it: ‘Damn, I am such a good liar..!’
    When asked by her brother Lee why she didn’t just surrender Caylee to her parents, she replied, ‘Maybe because I’m a spiteful bitch.’
    Theory floating around Mickeyville: she would chloroform or medicate Caylee and put her in the trunk, while she was out partying. (George and Cindy didn’t have her.)
    There was no ‘Zanny the Nanny’- (however zanny is street slang for xanax..)
    Caylee was almost 3 when she died- she was at the age where she could explain abstracts, and she would also talk about issues and incidents. If she woke up during one of those scenes; it was just a matter of time before George and Cindy found out, so Casey was cornered.
    It was well-documented that Caylee would fight sleep- perhaps out of fear of a previous incident??
    Nothing will faze this bitch; she is a ‘courteous and happy inmate,’ per the corrections officials.
    She only ‘cries’ when she is the subject of discussion.
    She would throw God, and family under the bus, if it would give her one more ‘Hot Body’ contest, or one more chance at a wealthy boyfriend..
    I think she is guilty as hell- as do many here, and while I am not anti death penalty, in her case I am hoping for Life. She has been in the ‘girl’s dorm’ in Orange Co. jail.
    Send her to the big house, and let her live the nightmare reserved for child killers- for the remainder of her miserable life.

    • Khirad says:

      I give special consideration when it’s local.

      This was mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westley_Allan_Dodd

      I was around the victim’s ages at the time. Our parents had us on very short leashes for a few weeks there. It was before 24/7 news, but I’d imagine it would have gotten a lot of play today.

      Now, seriously, I was about to ask what kind of a name Xanny is. I don’t know why this didn’t occur to me earlier. Of course it’s slang for Xanax. Duh! She’s consistent and brazen and performed her lies well, but the ability of a lie to work is on the susceptibility of the receiver to believe it. And that shoulda just screamed ¡bullshit!

      Her parents should have gone for custody and declared her unfit. Ah, but hindsight is 20/20…

      • jkkFL says:

        Khirad, they did threaten it- but in FL Grandparents have no legal rights.
        They would have had to file a complaint with DCF, and DCF would have had to investigate her case and prove her an unfit mother..
        A Grandparent does not even have the right to file for rights to see their Grandchild, in FL. They had No options- unless Casey voluntarily signed Caylee over to them.
        If you remember- Lee asked her why she didn’t turn Caylee over to her parents. Her reply, ‘Maybe I’m a spiteful bitch…’

  14. BlueStateMan says:

    Who gives a FLYING FUCK?

    • whatsthatsound says:


    • funksands says:

      Boy are you gonna hate my recap of the Lindsay Lohan trial minutes….

    • choicelady says:

      Anyone who cares about the disastrous way we leave single moms to fend for themselves. In “olden times” there would have been other women and men to help her. The Victorian and thus ultra-conservative notions that nuclear families are the norm has bred not only dark and obsessive problems for the mothers who have no one to talk to or to help but a nation of narcissists who have no sense of alternative worlds in which they can function. Girls have no other role models than their depressed and desperate mothers. Boys too often have no role models at all given absent fathers.

      So we do try to learn from this. It’s not something to blow off but to correct. The Caseys of the world need help so their children don’t become victims of our warped notions of “family”. I almost was one, so yeah -- I do give a fuck.

      • BlueStateMan says:

        What has this to do with “the disastrous way we leave single moms to fend for themselves”??

        “Correct” WHAT?

        This is PRURIENT HOGWASH touted as “social relevance”.


        • choicelady says:

          BSM -- I think you are usually wonderful and have great comments, but we are discussing this because, among other things, Casey could have been MY mother although mine was married.

          The issue of how we keep women who are single mothers from self destructing and then destroying their children IS important. Nancy Grace does NOT define how we think about these concerns. Casey’s individual story is not unique. We all are trying to put this into context. That’s all.

          And you are NOT required to pay attention. Just don’t trash those of us who see this as a bigger issue than one woman’s horrific behavior.

          • BlueStateMan says:

            My dear friend.. what she MIGHT have been and what she IS could very well be as different as night and day.

            No matter WHAT the situation is (and remember that peacekitten.. my significant other was horribly abused by her husband to the point of attempted murder).. there is NEVER an excuse for deliberately MURDERING your own child.. or ANY child for that matter.

            She could very well be innocent… I hope she is as she is most certainly damaged and in need of help… but the facts seem to point otherwise.

            Of ALL of the women needed to be “role models” in this era where degenerate factions are trying to rolL their status back to that of “property” in this country… the LAST one I would choose is MEDEA.

        • Kalima says:

          BSM, if you don’t like the subject of KQ’s post then you don’t have to read it or comment on it, however it is a topical subject, and this site welcomes opinion pieces about any subject, not just political. You might like to check out the other recent articles here, where everyone certainly has plenty to say about problems facing the U.S. today. We talk about politics almost 24/7 here, it’s a holiday weekend, so let’s please calm down and let others speak about other things too. Btw, Happy 4th of July to you both.

          • BlueStateMan says:

            Nevertheless, my old and respected colleague, it IS my opinion, and I fail to see why it is less relevant than any other here.

            This is TABLOID journalism.. and I feel it BENEATH what this site is supposed to represent.

            • BlueStateMan says:

              Indeed.. nobody is advocating otherwise.

            • Kalima says:

              Of course you are entitled to your opinion BSM, and it is always very much appreciated, but we are free to write about topical subjects too, and I really don’t see KQ’s post as lowering any standards here, or that his post is in any way “tabloid” journalism. You do realize that this is quite insulting to another member I hope, and this is one thing we try to avoid here. I thank you for your cooperation on this.

        • kesmarn says:

          I must say, I’m in agreement with c’lady on this. There is much relevance in KQ’s article.

          There have been a number of instances of women killing their own children and it never hurts to try to understand why, nor to examine the way we react to these situations. Including the way the legal system reacts to them.

          The Planet is a good forum for these discussions, as there usually tends to be a lot of intelligent, compassionate commentary and analysis, and not a lot of sensationalism.

          • Khirad says:

            I guess, to split the difference, I would rather most of this stayed on Court TV. There is news. Then again, when was the last time that was covered anyway? If it’s not sensationalizing this, it’d be something else. So, whatever. I just tended to shut off the TV when they went to wall-to-wall coverage of this. Also, the kitchen sink crap the defense was throwing out there I feared was making me stupider every extra second I listened to it -- the Jersey Shore effect.

            I think there are issues to discuss about it, which we are here. But for most people, I think debt ceilings and such are too abstract, and everyone can connect to this, and so it is tabloidized. Hélas.

            • kesmarn says:

              No doubt at all, Khirad, that the media really have sensationalized this story. I would assume it was done by Nancy Grace, especially, although I can’t say for sure because I truly cannot bring myself to watch her. And that tabloid journalism is not good.

              But I don’t feel KQ’s article was inappropriate in the way it approached the subject. (And I realize you’re not saying it was, either.) Hence, my confusion at the strong reaction.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories