quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN™ Mr. Cronk, the founder of said remains

Well there we go. Innocent.

Yea that guy looked just like the guy out of some movie. He was creepy, he lied, and put a pole in the eye socket of the skull of Caylee Marie Anthony. The defense even suggested that he may have removed the remains and taken them home with him as they weren't found when Mr. Cronk and the detectives went to site and could not find the remains. Several weeks later those remains were found in the same place that had been searched.

Of course, someone like DJRYAN™ would be following this case attentively. I bet you watch Lifetime, too.

Monsieur Ryan, the meanings of "finder" and "founder" are not the same.

Guilty of manslaughter.

No way she's getting murder in the 1st, or the death penalty. There's way too many loose strings surrounding this case.

She did it. But there's no CONCRETE evidence to support that.

Jury is in deliberation, now.

If there's no concrete evidence that she murdered the kid, she shouldn't be charged with anything.

Anyways, there are a lot of abnormalaties in this case. From the coincidental chloroform to the blatant and probably unwarranted lies that Casey told. The fact of the matter is that George and Cindy had knowledge of what had happened to Caylee. George and Cindy had two private investigators working for them who had searched the area in which Caylee was found subsequent to the actual findings. This is indicative of individuals who knew approximately where the remains of Caylee were. Also, as a matter of testimony, the smell of decomposition which was so highly contested in this case, only appeared after the search for a "live" Caylee transcended into a search for a "dead" Caylee. Officers who had been in or near the car, friends of Caylee's, even a tow truck driver who had experiences with 5-6 decomposing bodies indicated that the car did not smell like anything other than trash. It wasn't until afterwards that experts, unrelated to the investigation suggested, by using unproven forensic technologies, that decomposition had occured in the truck of Casey's car.

That too and of itself raises questions. There were bug experts who testified that a trunk of a car doesn't provide an adequate seal to protect from the infestation of flies, maggots, and larva, that would prey on a decomposing body. That, no matter where the body was these insects would be attracted and infest the body. There was no evidence of any of that occuring in the trunk of the car.

There were no signs of decompositional fluids, and all tests results appeared to be identical to that of basic household trash decomposing as well.

With the inconclusive evidence offered in the case, being the only information used in order to prove guilt or innocence, there is no way that the American Justice System could allow someone to be put to death under these limted and abnormal pieces of information.

This is why the only reassonable result is involuntary manslaughter attributed to the negligent homicide of allowing Caylee to drown in the families pool and subsequent coverup.

It only makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by idontremember Guilty of manslaughter. No way she's getting murder in the 1st, or the death penalty. There's way too many loose strings surrounding this case. She did it. But there's no CONCRETE evidence to support that. Jury is in deliberation, now.

Yea, that's what I think..

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 If there's no concrete evidence that she murdered the kid, she shouldn't be charged with anything.

Unfortantley in America if your charged with the higest of a crime, then all lesser crimes are also on the table. So, if they don't get you for one, they can get you on a few others. "No crime goes unpunished"...

The insurmountable circumstantial evidence, along with her lies, puts her in the position that she is in right now.

quote:

Originally posted by DJRYAN™ Unfortantley in America if your charged with the higest of a crime, then all lesser crimes are also on the table. So, if they don't get you for one, they can get you on a few others. "No crime goes unpunished"...

You're right but just because you can be charged with a lesser crime doesn't mean you will. She's innocent until proven guilty, and it appears that her guilt hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 You're right but just because you can be charged with a lesser crime doesn't mean you will. She's innocent until proven guilty, and it appears that her guilt hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yea but no jury is going to allow her to just walk away. I bet you its manslaughter. There's no weapon, no motive, no premediation. All the prosecution has is the remains, and a crazy mom. Nothing else. And Mr. Mason's chart indicated yesterday. Any thing less than "there is no question in my mind" about anything that happened in this case justifies acquittal.