Defense lawyer: 56:35 "Caylee Anthony died on June 16, 2008 when she drowned in her family's swimming pool." He then predicates a huge defense upon that assertion, coupled with Casey's alleged childhood abuse.
Defense lawyer: 1:00:31 "The one question - the key question - will never be answered, and that is 'how did Caylee die?'" He contradicts one main premise of his initial defense.

These jury members were intellectually unfit to be in a jury.

Have you been to Florida? Good luck finding anyone fit to be in a jury.

Have you been to Florida? Good luck finding anyone fit to be in a jury.

@Scott Demirjian well most are not physically unfit, that's just us in the west. Must are unfit to judge their peees sensibly on a jury

@Scott Demirjian well most are not physically unfit, that's just us in the west. Must are unfit to judge their peees sensibly on a jury

@Naz Ak depending on what you mean, I might be inclined to agree with you

@Naz Ak depending on what you mean, I might be inclined to agree with you

he wasn’t contradicting his own defense he was admitting his defense couldn’t be proven same as the prosecution - there is no way to ever truly know how she died

he wasn’t contradicting his own defense he was admitting his defense couldn’t be proven same as the prosecution - there is no way to ever truly know how she died

This fcking thread man! God, I love the internet! Chefs kiss to you all!

This fcking thread man! God, I love the internet! Chefs kiss to you all!

@Razakin We do hate the game.  We're all saying that the justice system sucks.  We also hate the defense attorney for abusing a shitty justice system instead of having integrity and doing the right thing.  I don't care if defending is his job, I can hate him for lack of integrity.

@Razakin We do hate the game.  We're all saying that the justice system sucks.  We also hate the defense attorney for abusing a shitty justice system instead of having integrity and doing the right thing.  I don't care if defending is his job, I can hate him for lack of integrity.

@Patrick Lincoln What?  so he lied at 56:35, realized that nobody would believe his lie, so creates a completely new lie with no connection or consistency with the first lie.  And that's somehow not a contradiction?

@Patrick Lincoln What?  so he lied at 56:35, realized that nobody would believe his lie, so creates a completely new lie with no connection or consistency with the first lie.  And that's somehow not a contradiction?

@Scott Demirjian None of that is reasonable doubt.  Scotty would have been selected for the jury because your logic to acquit her makes 0 sense.

@Scott Demirjian None of that is reasonable doubt.  Scotty would have been selected for the jury because your logic to acquit her makes 0 sense.

@Johnny Sins so far I've had people on this comment thread tell me how my religion is bound to provoke me to do heinous things (I'm an atheist), quote people in the video as saying things they never said to try and make their point, argue about the burden of proof not being met but then refuse to read 4 paragraphs I write in response literally refuting that position, and now I've got some troll impersonating a porn star liking his own comment that alleges me to be a Democrat (I'm not) as if that could even conceivably further this conversation at all. To anchor every facet of life to partisanship is to not know how to sufficiently think critically in a way that solves problems. So who caught who here?

@Johnny Sins I bet all 12 of them were homo-sapiens, too. Kudos for shoehorning a political agenda into a conversation that couldn't possibly have anything less to do with politics.

@Johnny Sins I bet all 12 of them were homo-sapiens, too. Kudos for shoehorning a political agenda into a conversation that couldn't possibly have anything less to do with politics.

The pool thing is complete bs that wouldn’t explain the duct tape!

The pool thing is complete bs that wouldn’t explain the duct tape!

He also said that immediately the prosecution were trying to paint casey as a bad person, but immediately the defense painted casey as a victim with no proof. If caylee drowned, then WHY was their duct tape and WHY did casey look up "fool proof suffocation". This is absolute bonkers

He also said that immediately the prosecution were trying to paint casey as a bad person, but immediately the defense painted casey as a victim with no proof. If caylee drowned, then WHY was their duct tape and WHY did casey look up "fool proof suffocation". This is absolute bonkers

@Xyz0321 Wer Yeah.  Like there is a reasonable doubt the sun might come up in the east tomorrow.  smh.

@Xyz0321 Wer Yeah.  Like there is a reasonable doubt the sun might come up in the east tomorrow.  smh.

@The thiccest boi it was known beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered, though. Once confronted with the evidence of the tape over Caylee's nose and mouth and her body being triple-bagged and hidden in the woods, where is there room for any reasonable doubt of homicide?

@The thiccest boi it was known beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered, though. Once confronted with the evidence of the tape over Caylee's nose and mouth and her body being triple-bagged and hidden in the woods, where is there room for any reasonable doubt of homicide?

Tbf he could have meant whether or not she was murdered rather than the specific cause of death

Tbf he could have meant whether or not she was murdered rather than the specific cause of death

@Jessie Mulcahy even more frustrating is the onslaught of otherwise intelligent people still remarking on this comment in defense of Casey despite now being 12 years removed from this with mountains of additional reasons to be nearly certain that Casey was complicit in the unlawful death of her child.

@Jackie Bruhn provide a time stamp for what you have in quotes, please. I'm not hearing where Baez says it.

Go figure. I type a couple short paragraphs pertaining to your objection about the jury's qualifications and I'm rambling unnecessarily, but Baez spends half an hour gaslighting the jury in his closing remarks for them to simply return a 'not guilty' and I bet suddenly you'll think his rambling was necessary. Just because you didn't address what I said doesn't automatically make it irrelevant lol.

@Scott Demirjian A) I'm not equivocating anything. I'm saying the reasonable assumption and interpretation is that that's what he meant.

"She drowned, but can we prove it was murder?" - is quite literally the entire point.

B) Dude, your rambling is absolutely unnecessary, it took me two seconds to reply because that's how little of your message was substantial in the slightest.

@Jackie Bruhn how can you objectively conclude that's what his second quote meant? I think you're equivocating the cause of death with the context of death. You're saying you think he wanted to draw attention to the question of the context of her death given that there was tape over her respiratory orifices when she was found triple-bagged disposed in the woods, coupled with testimony of human decomposition emanating from Casey's car alongside a fabricated alibi and kidnapper rather than simply drawing the jury's attention toward the perceived uncertainty of what caused Caylee's death? That seems profoundly unreasonable. I mean, as clumsy as his contradiction was, that would have been orders of magnitude worse, would it not?

And by 'intellectually unfit' I mean unequipped with the ability to spot rhetorical fallacies and/or an adequate epistemological methodology, not necessarily an inability to solve basic problems or comprehend straightforward information, for instance. The bar they set for reasonable doubt trended irresponsibly close to outright delusion, in other words.

@Jackie Bruhn how can you objectively conclude that's what his second quote meant? I think you're equivocating the *cause* of death with the *context* of death. You're saying you think he wanted to draw attention to the question of the context of her death given that there was tape over her respiratory orifices when she was found triple-bagged disposed in the woods, coupled with testimony of human decomposition emanating from Casey's car alongside a fabricated alibi and kidnapper rather than simply drawing the jury's attention toward the perceived uncertainty of what caused Caylee's death? That seems profoundly unreasonable. I mean, as clumsy as his contradiction was, that would have been orders of magnitude worse, would it not?

And by 'intellectually unfit' I mean unequipped with the ability to spot rhetorical fallacies and/or an adequate epistemological methodology, not necessarily an inability to solve basic problems or comprehend straightforward information, for instance. The bar they set for reasonable doubt trended irresponsibly close to outright delusion, in other words.

You've misunderstood the fundamental part of the quotes. The first quote says she died by drowning. The second quote asks whether it was murder, neglect or accidental. So no, he didn't contradict any premise of the defense, nor were the jurors intellectually unfit. In fact that's reasoning for not being a juror so I doubt they'd make it through selection if they were.

Not only that, he told them that there was no proof of how she died...so how can he say that she died in the swimming pool?  There's no proof.  Aside from that, a Medical Examiner would have easily been able to tell if the person 'died in a swimming pool'.  It still doesn't answer why her mouth was taped up (why tape a mouth up if she was already dead), stuffed in the trunk for however long, wrapped in a blanket, and then tossed out somewhere to be found by someone else.  Is that not 'abuse of a corpse"?

@Allan Couceiro while I realize your responses to me were completely vacuous, you made a very good point to anoN Nona that, while they can definitely speak for themselves, I want to address also.

You really do make a well-calculated, mature point there. It's entirely possible that the jury members were privy to information that, had i been subjected to in the same way, would have left me in a similar state of doubt. That would, of course, debase my initial remark that the jury was intellectually unfit to serve on a jury unless I am to concede that I would be too. And of course, with 12 separate members of society unanimously agreeing they didn't have enough evidence to convict, perhaps it's too easy for me to attribute this to stupidity, as several have already suggested above to me. I get that. Maybe they aren't stupid; maybe what influenced their decision-making differed substantially from my own, and I'd have also acquitted if in their shoes.

Hmm. Why does this feel like a familiar scenario? Wait, I think I've got it.

I grew up a fundamentalist Christian, and finally started learning about cultural differences, science, mythology, epistemology, and rhetorical devices and fallacies late into my teenage years. Into my 20's most of the central claims of the faith became untenable for me to continue holding given what I was coming to learn about the world I lived in. And hey, 2 billion people worldwide adhere to Christianity. Another 1.7 billion adhere to Islam, and still a billion more to Hinduism. These are all mutually exclusive worldviews, mind you - they can't all be true in the same sense at the same time. Now, how did I come to form an epistemology that would stay consistent in disproving Islam and Hinduism while also maintaining  Christian ideology? Well, i couldn't do it with any intellectual honesty in tact. So your argument that I too would be compelled to vote as the jury did only if I had been on it is extremely analogous to saying I'd be a Muslim if only I grew up in the middle east, or a Hindu had I grown up in India. That's probably true, up until I reformed how I establish what is true and what isn't, and the gradients of possibility in between. But this is what I mean when I say they were unfit to serve on a jury. They didn't have a reformed epistemological methodology to correct for whatever indoctrination tactics had been employed to dissuade them from what we as the retrospective audience now find to be so utterly obvious.

I'm not saying they were collectively dumber than the general population. Quite the opposite; they were a true sampling of it. It isn't common to meet people with a solid enough epistemological foundation to refrain from subscribing to ideas that 90% of people around them insist are true. Now, of course, that observation in and of itself doesn't mean much. Maybe that person is delusional. Maybe they're denying gravity, or think birds are government drones used to spy on civilians. Or maybe they tend to get ahead of unpopular ideas and can extract the truth in ways that don't seem obvious at first, but prove more and more to be true as time allows us to examine the evidence further. I'd wager that's what I, and many others here, have done. We're the ones less likely to get conned. We're the ones not accepting BS as sufficient, nor being swayed to believe that being overly-skeptical is noble rather than the complete affront to basic human decency like in this particular case..

When it comes to being impervious to rhetorical tactics used to melt our minds, yes, this jury seemed not to have anyone psychologically strong enough to withstand the mental rigors of sorting through the evidence through a filter constrained by reason instead of incredulity. I think I've more than defended my point here, and stand by it.

@anoN Nona nah man, and that's my point. No-one here was on that jury, so we only see what JCS shows us. That trial would have gone for weeks. Who knows what the jury saw/heard?? Maybe if we were in the jury, we would have thought "reasonable doubt", too.

@anoN Nona nah man, and that's my point. No-one here was on that jury, so we only see what JCS shows us. That trial would have gone for weeks. Who knows what the jury saw/heard?? Maybe if we were in the jury, we would have thought "reasonable doubt", too.

@Scott Demirjian open a window, mate. Go for a walk outside.

@Scott Demirjian open a window, mate. Go for a walk outside.

@Allan Couceiro fair enough, it's an absolute wall of text.

Well, TLDR; I present the proof that she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Guess if you don't believe me, you're gonna have to read it to make sure I'm full of crap.

Not to be rude, but you strike me as the type of person for whom taking the time to read something intellectually challenging might really do some good.

@Allan Couceiro You must've been on that jury

@Allan Couceiro You must've been on that jury

@Allan Couceiro sharpen up what you mean by 'prove,' because evidence-based proofs aren't the same as, say, mathematical proofs. That's why the standard of reasonable doubt is implemented in deciding a verdict. But if you want something like a mathematical proof, you could assign probabilities to each piece of evidence that represent the likelihood that Casey did not actively participate in the killing of her child. Now, I grant that this would have some major tolerance or error constraints, and it may even run the risk of being subjective to a degree that renders it unscientific or unreliable. But I will revisit that weakness in just a moment.

Say that the search history on her computer being a complete coincidence is about 30% (what would have to be a tremendously generous value). There's plenty of room for reasonable doubt there. Allow for a 20% tolerance, and now you could argue it's a coin flip as to whether or not that piece of evidence could serve to demonstrate potential guilt. Now accompany that with her diary entries also being a coincidence, or perhaps just a total misunderstanding. Let's say it's about 75% likely that what she wrote in her diary during the time Caylee was missing isn't indicative of feeling glad that Caylee was gone (also profoundly generous to her). Give that about a 20% tolerance too. Even when taking those two pieces of evidence together, you get .3 x .75 for a probability of .225 (or 22 5%, give or take our tolerance of 20% for each piece of circumstantial evidence) that she is not guilty here. Obviously this doesn't meet the standard of going beyond reasonable doubt. With those tolerances included, we have anywhere from a 5.5% chance of coincidence (and therefore doubt) all the way to a 47.5% chance (of doubt). So, keep doing this with the other pieces of evidence. Maybe the fabricated kidnapper and alibi each get around a 30% chance of her underlying childhood trauma surfacing in deceptive fashion, but not because she killed Caylee. Give each of those around a 20% uncertainty tolerance too. Now we have .3 x .3 x .3 x .75 yielding a .02025 (or 2.025% chance) for doubt/uncertainty for her guilt. Now that looks pretty damning, but we haven't calculated it with the most charitable tolerances yet. That would yield a .5 x .5 x .5 x .95 for the doubt of her guilt, or about 12% to be uncertain to convict. Well now there's a lot more room to doubt reasonably in this case. But all we have to do from here is now factor in just another piece of evidence to realize how untenable this idea that we can't prove her guilt is. Take the smell of decomposing flesh as attested to by her very own parents. This one gets extremely hard to defend, but let's say there's an equal chance that Caylee drowned and Casey just...I guess...rode around with her dead daughter in her car instead of calling an ambulance when it happened? Set aside the psychological implications of such a course of action... Let's assign a 50% chance to both homicide and accident here (this is frankly irresponsibly generous in favor of acquittal, but I'm doing it solely for the sake of argument). Maybe tack on a 20% error for this one too. We now end up with a range of .0165% to 8.31% for sheer coincidence, and thus reasonable doubt. At this point, we are needing to opt for the highest allowable tolerance in favor of Casey's innocence for each piece of evidence to retain that 8.31% chance of coincidence and doubt. Keep factoring in all the applicable evidence as presented in the case, and that number continues to decrease exponentially. Take, for instance, her leading investigators to a dead end at universal studios when trying to create the narrative for her alibi. Maybe that's another time when it's 80% likely she just wanted attention or was subconsciously crying out for help rather than lying to cover her tracks for murder. Now, this is my most outrageous percentage yet in her favor, but I'm trying to demonstrate that we can be as charitable to her as possible, yet our hands are still tied in reasonably doubting her guilt. Give that one a 20% tolerance too, and our percentage for doubt actually doesn't change at our most charitable tolerance, as we've effectively multiplied what we previously had by 1.00. Should we assign it this value? Well, no, i think we objectively shouldn't. But we could, and it would help her case. The problem we run into is that we cannot leave any piece of evidence out here. We have to crunch the number in their totality. So when we incorporate the remaining dozen or so other pieces of evidence like her motive to party again and her behavior during the month between Caylee going missing and the authorities being notified, even our most generous boundary for doubt begins to approach less than 1%. It was at 8.31%, you'll recall. Now, factoring in a coin flip for each of those pieces of evidence with 20% tolerances, we get an upper bound of 4% likelihood that this is all a coincidence, and that reasonable doubt for Casey's guilt amounts to 1 in 25. Still not enough to convict for the death penalty, I grant and agree. So let's now factor in our remaining pieces of circumstantial evidence: the proximity of the body to her home, and how Caylee's body was triple-bagged to suggest homicide being roughly 30% more likely than an accidental death. Again, these figures are so generous to the defense that it's literally laughable and perhaps even reprehensible to entertain them. They're arguably unreasonable, honestly. But we'll still use them, because we need to have a conscious that isn't plagued by any possibility of injustice. That gives us a 35% chance on 2 pieces of evidence for coincidence and doubt, coupled with 20% tolerances for each. Now we take our 4% chance for reasonable doubt and multiply that by .55 and another .55 to arrive at a 1.23% chance for coincidence as our uppermost bound. That's about 1 in 81. Have we passed the threshold yet? Maybe reasonable doubt evaporates once we exceed a 1 in 200 chance that it could all be a coincidence. This is arbitrarily defined, which is why I began by recommending you define what you mean by "prove." If we use our neutral tolerances for each piece of evidence, this standard is well exceeded. It's .025%, or .00025, or a 1 in 4,000 chance that all of this is a coincidence based upon the evidence we've calculated probabilities for so far. But let's stick with our least aggressive tolerances. We still haven't even included the other half of the circumstantial evidence yet, man. HALF! This number would end up getting close enough to 0 even at the upper bound that trying to maintain reasonable doubt would only become possible for a schizophrenic or otherwise delusional vantage point, as I've already mentioned in several other comments above.

If we only had a few pieces of this evidence, then it might be true to say we can't be reasonably certain of her guilt. But we end up hitting epistemological bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question when, after considering all the evidence, we continue to ask 'what if we're wrong?' You have a better chance of being struck by lightning the same day you win the lottery than that you're wrong about this.

@Allan Couceiro sharpen up what you mean by 'prove,' because evidence-based proofs aren't the same as, say, mathematical proofs. That's why the standard of reasonable doubt is implemented in deciding a verdict. But if you want something like a mathematical proof, you could assign probabilities to each piece of evidence that represent the likelihood that Casey *did not* actively participate in the killing of her child. Now, I grant that this would have some major tolerance or error constraints, and it may even run the risk of being subjective to a degree that renders it unscientific or unreliable. But I will revisit that weakness in just a moment.

Say that the search history on her computer being a complete coincidence is about 30% (what would have to be a tremendously generous value). There's plenty of room for reasonable doubt there. Allow for a 20% tolerance, and now you could argue it's a coin flip as to whether or not that piece of evidence could serve to demonstrate potential guilt. Now accompany that with her diary entries also being a coincidence, or perhaps just a total misunderstanding. Let's say it's about 75% likely that what she wrote in her diary during the time Caylee was missing isn't indicative of feeling glad that Caylee was gone (also profoundly generous to her). Give that about a 20% tolerance too. Even when taking those two pieces of evidence together, you get .3 x .75 for a probability of .225 (or 22 5%, give or take our tolerance of 20% for each piece of circumstantial evidence) that she is not guilty here. Obviously this doesn't meet the standard of going beyond reasonable doubt. With those tolerances included, we have anywhere from a 5.5% chance of coincidence (and therefore doubt) all the way to a 47.5% chance (of doubt). So, keep doing this with the other pieces of evidence. Maybe the fabricated kidnapper and alibi each get around a 30% chance of her underlying childhood trauma surfacing in deceptive fashion, but not because she killed Caylee. Give each of those around a 20% uncertainty tolerance too. Now we have .3 x .3 x .3 x .75 yielding a .02025 (or 2.025% chance) for doubt/uncertainty for her guilt. Now that looks pretty damning, but we haven't calculated it with the most charitable tolerances yet. That would yield a .5 x .5 x .5 x .95 for the doubt of her guilt, or about 12% to be uncertain to convict. Well now there's a lot more room to doubt reasonably in this case. But all we have to do from here is now factor in just another piece of evidence to realize how untenable this idea that we can't *prove* her guilt is. Take the smell of decomposing flesh as attested to by her very own parents. This one gets extremely hard to defend, but let's say there's an equal chance that Caylee drowned and Casey just...I guess...rode around with her dead daughter in her car instead of calling an ambulance when it happened? Set aside the psychological implications of such a course of action... Let's assign a 50% chance to both homicide and accident here (this is frankly irresponsibly generous in favor of acquittal, but I'm doing it solely for the sake of argument). Maybe tack on a 20% error for this one too. We now end up with a range of .0165% to 8.31% for sheer coincidence, and thus reasonable doubt. At this point, we are needing to opt for the highest allowable tolerance in favor of Casey's innocence for each piece of evidence to retain that 8.31% chance of coincidence and doubt. Keep factoring in all the applicable evidence as presented in the case, and that number continues to decrease exponentially. Take, for instance, her leading investigators to a dead end at universal studios when trying to create the narrative for her alibi. Maybe that's another time when it's 80% likely she just wanted attention or was subconsciously crying out for help rather than lying to cover her tracks for murder. Now, this is my most outrageous percentage yet in her favor, but I'm trying to demonstrate that we can be as charitable to her as possible, yet our hands are still tied in reasonably doubting her guilt. Give that one a 20% tolerance too, and our percentage for doubt actually doesn't change at our most charitable tolerance, as we've effectively multiplied what we previously had by 1.00. Should we assign it this value? Well, no, i think we objectively shouldn't. But we could, and it would help her case. The problem we run into is that we cannot leave any piece of evidence out here. We have to crunch the number in their totality. So when we incorporate the remaining dozen or so other pieces of evidence like her motive to party again and her behavior during the month between Caylee going missing and the authorities being notified, even our most generous boundary for doubt begins to approach less than 1%. It was at 8.31%, you'll recall. Now, factoring in a coin flip for each of those pieces of evidence with 20% tolerances, we get an upper bound of 4% likelihood that this is all a coincidence, and that reasonable doubt for Casey's guilt amounts to 1 in 25. Still not enough to convict for the death penalty, I grant and agree. So let's now factor in our remaining pieces of circumstantial evidence: the proximity of the body to her home, and how Caylee's body was triple-bagged to suggest homicide being roughly 30% more likely than an accidental death. Again, these figures are so generous to the defense that it's literally laughable and perhaps even reprehensible to entertain them. They're arguably unreasonable, honestly. But we'll still use them, because we need to have a conscious that isn't plagued by any possibility of injustice. That gives us a 35% chance on 2 pieces of evidence for coincidence and doubt, coupled with 20% tolerances for each. Now we take our 4% chance for reasonable doubt and multiply that by .55 and another .55 to arrive at a 1.23% chance for coincidence as our uppermost bound. That's about 1 in 81. Have we passed the threshold yet? Maybe reasonable doubt evaporates once we exceed a 1 in 200 chance that it could all be a coincidence. This is arbitrarily defined, which is why I began by recommending you define what you mean by "prove." If we use our neutral tolerances for each piece of evidence, this standard is well exceeded. It's .025%, or .00025, or a 1 in 4,000 chance that all of this is a coincidence based upon the evidence we've calculated probabilities for so far. But let's stick with our least aggressive tolerances. We still haven't even included the other half of the circumstantial evidence yet, man. HALF! This number would end up getting close enough to 0 even at the upper bound that trying to maintain reasonable doubt would only become possible for a schizophrenic or otherwise delusional vantage point, as I've already mentioned in several other comments above.

If we only had a few pieces of this evidence, then it might be true to say we can't be reasonably certain of her guilt. But we end up hitting epistemological bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question when, after considering all the evidence, we continue to ask 'what if we're wrong?' You have a better chance of being struck by lightning the same day you win the lottery than that you're wrong about this.

@Scott Demirjian uff.. I still stand by the defense lawyer's sentiment though: "baby drowned in pool, but we can never <b>know</b> (ie prove) what happened, one way or the other"

@Scott Demirjian uff.. I still stand by the defense lawyer's sentiment though: "baby drowned in pool, but we can never *know* (ie prove) what happened, one way or the other"

@Allan Couceiro I've extensively combed through every detail of this trial that's publicly available lol.

@Allan Couceiro I've extensively combed through every detail of this trial that's publicly available lol.

@Scott Demirjian homie, did you sit through the entire trial? Or just this awesome JCS recap?

@Scott Demirjian homie, did you sit through the entire trial? Or just this awesome JCS recap?

@Allan Couceiro that's almost verbatim what another person commented up above in this thread. If a jury is in possession of the 15 or so pieces of circumstantial evidence and the 5 or so pieces of physical evidence and still doesn't think they, in their totality, demonstrate guilt of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, their epistemological method is fundamentally flawed to the point where they could even see video or hear an outright confession and begin forming conspiracy theories to still exonerate Casey. It's delusional not to acknowledge that she was, at minimum, criminally complicit in her child's death.

@Scott Demirjian
I think the lawyer meant, "we can't prove she drowned in a swimming pool, they can't prove her mother killed her, therefore YOU will never know for certain what actually happened"

He is a very clever lawyer.  Pressing for full advantage that it's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt.

@Scott Demirjian
I think the lawyer meant, "we can't prove she drowned in a swimming pool, they can't prove her mother killed her, therefore YOU will never know for certain what actually happened"

He is a very clever lawyer.  Pressing for full advantage that it's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt.

@O RiGins you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. It’s over.

@O RiGins you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. It’s over.

Casey is on tape many times now continuously changing her story about what happened to this day. I’m hoping there’s a way for a retrial she was tried but wasn’t convicted so it shouldn’t be double jeopardy.

Casey is on tape many times now continuously changing her story about what happened to this day. I’m hoping there’s a way for a retrial she was tried but wasn’t convicted so it shouldn’t be double jeopardy.

@McGuffin Doe you don't find your second paragraph to be an obvious straw man of my position though? You're going to try to argue effectively against me with ad hominems and misrepresentation? Quite obviously my position is that the burden of proof was thoroughly exceeded when the totality of the evidence is taken into consideration, and that it's an unequivocal breech of ethics to fail to acknowledge that.

Take a moment to appreciate that you first said "The jury finding that Cayley was killed or that she drowned were both legally acceptable conclusions" and followed it up with "Legally acceptable refers to conduct of police and attorneys and judges."

@Scott Demirjian wrong. He was presenting the defense’s theory of the case and contrasting it with the prosecution’s.

@Scott Demirjian wrong. He was presenting the defense’s theory of the case and contrasting it with the prosecution’s.

@Brynna C correct. He’s presenting a question of fact to the tinder of fact. People have a misconception that our legal system is aimed at discovering the truth.

That’s not the case. The truth is impossible to know. Our system does not even attempt at it. Instead, we are aimed at coming to a legally acceptable conclusion. The jury finding that Cayley was killed or that she drowned were both legally acceptable conclusions

@Ethan Roy ah, I see. So you think I'm mistaken for criticizing the unintelligence of others, and your way of demonstrating that I should be slower to assume the incompetence of others is to hypocritically charge me with incompetence. Perfect, keep enlightening me man. I really need your wisdom and guidance.

You are correct. He knew that very well, and exploited that factor to the bitter end. You can hate him or love him but he is lawyer above all else and a good one at that.

You are correct. He knew that very well, and exploited that factor to the bitter end. You can hate him or love him but he is lawyer above all else and a good one at that.

@Ethan Roy you don't seem to understand how logical consistency works. If someone makes a truth claim and then later makes a contradictory truth claim, they are internally inconsistent. Whether someone is a lawyer is a total non-sequitur to their ability to articulate such an inconsistency. I never claimed nor even suggested I am an expert on law. I don't have to be an expert to understand the basic concept of logical inconsistency.

@Scott Demirjian what makes you think you can be an expert on something by watching youtube videos on it? even if you watched everything that was publicly available on this case what makes you think you can take your shitty youtube skills and relatively unprofessional scope of knowledge of the judicial system and be able to judge a case that was put together by experts? Ive seen a thousand of you, you think that you know more than you do about everything. You don’t really know much about anything. that’s how i know you’re not a lawyer bud 😂

@Ethan Roy how did you decide that any of what you just said was true? How can you be certain I don't have a law degree? How do you know I haven't watched the dozens of other available videos about this case, some of the jurors' remarks afterward, the judge's thoughts afterward, both lawyers' remarks afterward, etc.? Why do you think one requires a law degree to be able to identify when someone has massively contradicted themselves? I'm trying to figure out why you think you can extract so much information from my one short youtube comment, but you think I'm constrained to learn enough to form a reasonable conclusion after watching an hour of substantive content about a court case that demands no more than a double-digit IQ to follow sufficiently. Seems like a wild double-standard, and an embarrassing one, frankly.

@Scott Demirjian actually i mean you just watched an hour youtube video on a court case that went on for a long time man. most lawyers have to react to new evidence and such also, and we didn’t see any of the actual trial of the case. specifically his reasoning for that claim. for all we know he could’ve explained that it was just an example and they didn’t really know. again you watched a youtube video you aren’t an expert on this case nor a lawyer bro.

The fact that they still claim: "We reached the verdict because the prosecutors didn't provide enough evidence" pisses me off because the defendant evidences is nearly nonexistent.

The fact that they still claim: "We reached the verdict because the prosecutors didn't provide enough evidence" pisses me off because the defendant evidences is nearly nonexistent.

@Scott Demirjian yes , you're right you quoted his exact words.

@Scott Demirjian yes , you're right you quoted his exact words.

Nice observation, jury should have said gotcha to defendant and convict him for false narrative and lies.

Nice observation, jury should have said gotcha to defendant and convict him for false narrative and lies.

@KB 2020 I lived most of my life in Florida. In terms of “collective IQ”, I can assure you this just feels like a factual statement. That is exactly what I thought as soon as I heard the jury’s verdict and I wondered if anyone else thought the same.

@KB 2020 I lived most of my life in Florida. In terms of “collective IQ”, I can assure you this just feels like a factual statement. That is exactly what I thought as soon as I heard the jury’s verdict and I wondered if anyone else thought the same.

@Razakin I'm a staunch anti-theist, actually. Good read.

@Razakin I'm a staunch anti-theist, actually. Good read.

@Razakin the 'game' is designed to correct for unethical 'players' who defend obviously guilty suspects on bad faith arguments, though. In nearly 100% of cases, juries do, in fact, get these verdicts reasonably correct, but when one in 10,000 slips through the cracks, clowns like you make a point to undermine the entire American government and its judicial system as if this is some predictable pattern rather than the outlier that it is. Unlike you, I actually wasn't merely talking shit from behind a screen - I was making an observation that now over 1,000 other people have agreed with in just 3 weeks time. The system isn't broken; the jury certainly was.

@G.Phillips I mean yeah, that's basically what I said.

@G.Phillips I mean yeah, that's basically what I said.

@Michael Krämer hence the title "Judge" sorry but that's the way to should be here in the United States. Ditch the jury and let the JUDGE decide the verdict.

@Michael Krämer hence the title "Judge" sorry but that's the way to should be here in the United States. Ditch the jury and let the JUDGE decide the verdict.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys are paid to do that. Hate the game not the player. Its your government :P also thats just human nature, people are shit. Its easy to talk shit from the comfort of behind a screen.<br>Though how she didnt get charged with child neglect at the least is beyond me lol

Prosecutors and defense attorneys are paid to do that. Hate the game not the player. Its your government :P also thats just human nature, people are shit. Its easy to talk shit from the comfort of behind a screen.
Though how she didnt get charged with child neglect at the least is beyond me lol

@Miguel G. I watched the video where juror #3 (Jennifer Ford) explains and defends her decision to vote 'not guilty,' and one of the many fallacies she repeatedly appeals to throughout her explanation is that there wasn't enough hard evidence, and that not only did she not know how Caylee died, but that she believed there wasn't one person in America who could claim to know how she died. Now, given that this woman later reveals she does believe it was a homicide, I don't need to tell you how stupid it is to couple that belief with one that no one knows what happened to her... Clearly somebody does. But the larger issue is that this juror made the mistake of only looking at one or two pieces of evidence and suggesting some possible weaknesses in them in isolation. She fails to ever address the sheer impossibility of taking ALL of the evidence in its totality and trying to retain a reasonable doubt for Casey's guilt when presented with what I spelled out several comments up: the overwhelming mountain of evidence that's all seamlessly accounted for if theorizing Casey's guilt.

There's a motive of wanting her previous party life back, there's internet search history on Casey's computer that's perfectly compatible with the tape found over Caylee's nose and mouth, there's testimony to the smell of decomposing human flesh emanating from Casey's vehicle, there's Casey's obvious lack of care for her daughter's whereabouts during the month after she went missing, there's the total fabrication of a kidnapper and an alibi for Casey (she lies as freely as she breathes, which of course is an enormous red flag), and the list truly goes on without limits.

Look, I don't know the exact methods the contractors who built my house used to build it, but I don't question that they built it. Did they use a nail gun, or hammer the nails in? Did they ever work on it in the rain, or were they only working in clear conditions? Did they use tool belts or prefer to go back and forth to a work bench or toolbox, or perhaps both? Were any of them illegal, or were they all licensed to work in the US? I mean, I could ask a million questions about how they did what they did, and I could possibly answer many or even most of them. But some questions may remain unanswerable, and that's ok. At the end of the day, I know they built it, and I can find out exactly who had a part in building it. I don't need to know how they did it to know beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it, nor to determine who did it.

@Miguel G. I watched the video where juror #3 (Jennifer Ford) explains and defends her decision to vote 'not guilty,' and one of the many fallacies she repeatedly appeals to throughout her explanation is that there wasn't enough hard evidence, and that not only did she not know how Caylee died, but that she believed there wasn't one person in America who could claim to know how she died. Now, given that this woman later reveals she does believe it was a homicide, I don't need to tell you how stupid it is to couple that belief with one that no one knows what happened to her... Clearly somebody does. But the larger issue is that this juror made the mistake of only looking at one or two pieces of evidence and suggesting some possible weaknesses in them in isolation. She fails to ever address the sheer impossibility of taking ALL of the evidence in its totality and trying to retain a reasonable doubt for Casey's guilt when presented with what I spelled out several comments up: the overwhelming mountain of evidence that's all seamlessly accounted for if theorizing Casey's guilt.

There's a motive of wanting her previous party life back, there's internet search history on Casey's computer that's perfectly compatible with the tape found over Caylee's nose and mouth, there's testimony to the smell of decomposing human flesh emanating from Casey's vehicle, there's Casey's obvious lack of care for her daughter's whereabouts during the month after she went missing, there's the total fabrication of a kidnapper and an alibi for Casey (she lies as freely as she breathes, which of course is an enormous red flag), and the list truly goes on without limits.

Look, I don't know the exact methods the contractors who built my house used to build it, but I don't question that they built it. Did they use a nail gun, or hammer the nails in? Did they ever work on it in the rain, or were they only working in clear conditions? Did they use tool belts or prefer to go back and forth to a work bench or toolbox, or perhaps both? Were any of them illegal, or were they all licensed to work in the US? I mean, I could ask a million questions about how they did what they did, and I could possibly answer many or even most of them. But some questions may remain unanswerable, and that's ok. At the end of the day, I know they built it, and I can find out exactly who had a part in building it. I don't need to know *how* they did it to know beyond a reasonable doubt *that* they did it, nor to determine *who* did it.

There's a special place in hell for attorneys like that, I genuinely don't understand how you could live with yourself after working so hard to let a child murderer go free. Have to wonder if some attorneys know their clients are guilty, so they're like, I'll do my job, but do it poorly so they get convicted.

@Scott Demirjian i understand your point of view but it all comes down to the lack of evidence. Listen, i think shes definitely guilty here. But i think the evidence is lacking for first degree murder. But the fact that she probably planned to ignore the death of her child as long as she needed to, she still deserves jail time.

@Miguel G. it's still a double standard, though. He starts by making a positive claim to knowledge about the circumstances around Caylee's death, and then finishes by speaking to the lack of knowledge about the circumstances around her death. And each of those claims is supposed to serve to exonerate Casey. This is a textbook example of a double standard.

@Scott Demirjian he is trying to say that they cant prove how she died. Hes not explicitly saying that she didnt drown in a pool.

@Scott Demirjian he is trying to say that they cant prove how she died. Hes not explicitly saying that she didnt drown in a pool.

I think the lawyer said what he said at 1:00:31 because he assumed that it was not reasonable for the jurors to trust what he said at 56:35 just because he said it. He was just putting himself in the jurors' shoes. No contradiction here.

I think the lawyer said what he said at 1:00:31 because he assumed that it was not reasonable for the jurors to trust what he said at 56:35 just because he said it. He was just putting himself in the jurors' shoes. No contradiction here.

@Michael Krämer there's actually a good answer to your initial question there. Having only a judge dictate who's guilty or not lends itself to allowing a corrupt, sleep-deprived, deceived, or otherwise unfit individual mistakenly make a call for which no checks and balances could correct. The point of a jury and its necessary unanimity is specifically to correct for an authoritarian approach to justice, and changing these laws this substantially at this juncture in our nation's history would create a profoundly unstable uproar and backlash from the public. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that. So I fundamentally disagree that juries are relics of a bygone era, and your extreme hyperbole in discussing the stature of the American judicial system in comparison to other first-world countries may be uncalibrated enough to have intelligent people altogether ignore your concerns if you aren't more careful with your word choice. It's in need of some rehabilitation, yes, but your suggested alternative simply wouldn't be the remedy you're claiming it to be, nor is it as antiquated and ineffective as you're trying to sell.

@Michael Krämer or perhaps simply a corrective mechanism where the judge could appeal the jury's decision, and then issue a recount where he also gets a vote that's worth, say, 3 vote counts. Then, it would take 5 of the jury members changing their verdicts to overturn the initial decision (a count of 8-7). Unanimity would then not be mandatory.

Whatever the corrective mechanism is, we clearly need one that isn't a complete affront to the judicial system.

@Scott Demirjian Instructions or not, most civilians can still easily be swayed emotionally by an attorney who knows what they're doing.  <br>The much better alternative would be a European trial system, i.e. the judge gets to make the decision at the end of the trial, based on the available evidence, and if the defendant feels that it wasn't a fair trial, they can demand a retrial.

@Scott Demirjian Instructions or not, most civilians can still easily be swayed emotionally by an attorney who knows what they're doing.
The much better alternative would be a European trial system, i.e. the judge gets to make the decision at the end of the trial, based on the available evidence, and if the defendant feels that it wasn't a fair trial, they can demand a retrial.

@Michael Krämer they're not altogether untrained, though. There's a fairly rigorous and thorough instruction they receive from the court, the judge, and legal teams on what can and cannot happen in cases, what information can and cannot factor in to their decision-making process, etc. They also cannot be felons or in poor standing with the legal system. So there is a decently reliable filtration process that aims to prevent ethically unqualified people from serving.

I'm interested in hearing your alternative methods for judicial objectivity. And I certainly don't want to be mistaken as defending the jury in this particular case. Their misjudgment here truly was a totally avoidable tragedy.

@Scott Demirjian It's still not a good system by any stretch of the imagination. Having untrained civilians play such a crucial role in high-profile (or any) court cases is utter insanity.

@Scott Demirjian It's still not a good system by any stretch of the imagination. Having untrained civilians play such a crucial role in high-profile (or any) court cases is utter insanity.

@Michael Krämer you know, I've thought this too, but when you get a sampling of 12 civilians, it tends to correct for the fallacies that an individual might not catch or fall for. Really, it's rare that such an obvious case like this one, or the OJ Simpson case (which, btw, Casey went on to directly compare her own case to in a later interview, which could be hindsight point #15 in my list a few comment above) goes awry. If you had a jury of less than about 8, you'd see far more injustice. But with 12 having to vote unanimously, this is thankfully an uncommon event. Still shameful nonetheless.

Yeah, he must be pulling off some mind control or something, no way the jury didn't catch any one of the many countless problems in his defense 🤦

Yeah, he must be pulling off some mind control or something, no way the jury didn't catch any one of the many countless problems in his defense 🤦

@Xyz0321 Wer in law, reasonable doubt is any reason one has to doubt what the prosecution is trying to prove in its case.

So when you take the totality of the evidence:

1) the internet searches on Casey's computer for 'suffocation' and 'foolproof suffocation' the same day (or day before) Caylee died

2) the close proximity of the body to Casey's home in some woods, double wrapped in plastic bags, put into a duffle bag, and hidden behind some logs

3) the tape placed over the nose and mouth of the body

4) the absolutely cockamamie and obviously fabricated story Casey's mother gave for why 'chloroform' was searched for on Casey's computer during the time of Caylee's disappearance (this wasn't covered in this video, but Dr. Grande's breakdown of this case covers it, and it's worth listening to)

5) her own mother's testimony on the 9-1-1 call that it smelled like a dead body had been in Casey's car

6) Casey's bewildering behavior that was specifically calculated to only mislead and confuse investigators during the entire time Casey was supposed to have been unaware that her child was deceased, but rather only missing

7) again, the defense's bumbling internal contradictions of its own premises and main points

8) Casey's diary entries explaining that she's sure she made the right decision, and that she's the happiest she's ever been literally just weeks after her child has disappeared

9) her outright fabrication of the supposed kidnapper

10) the defense's rather criminal misrepresentation of her own father, falsely alleging that he molested her during childhood (i'm amazed he never sued for defamation of character)

11) her frequent partying during the weeks after Caylee's disappearance (this speaks directly to her motive: to regain the free lifestyle she had prior to motherhood)

12) her unwillingness to report her child missing, instead having her mother discover Casey's whereabouts and phoning it in herself

13) the polarized contrast between her mother's hysterical call for help versus Casey's calm, numb, careless demeanor in that very same phone call

14) the fact that even the judge believed the state had proven their case, and was fully convinced she'd be found guilty (also in Dr. Grande's video)

(and this list goes on for dozens more points)

then it really is a phantasmagorical degree of denial of the obvious to suggest there is a good reason to doubt Casey's guilt here. Sure, you could resort to conspiratorial or schizophrenic thinking like you could to doubt that the earth is spherical, or that Elvis is still alive, or any number of other obvious facts about reality, but that isn't reasonable, and thankfully, it isn't how our judicial system normally operates. It's certainly not supposed to be how it operates. I would call those 'delusional doubts' rather than reasonable ones, and I think that would be objectively true to say since every single piece of evidence points to Casey. Yet delusion is the only mental state one could assume to doubt this woman's guilt, and it's exasperating trying to explain that to people who think they've somehow championed reason or justice by defending her or unabashedly proclaiming there is any good reason to doubt her guilt. Casey's guilt is the one explanation for which every single piece of evidence is accounted seamlessly. There simply isn't a reasonable doubt to be found, and shame on anyone who refuses to call a spade a spade here.

@Xyz0321 Wer in law, reasonable doubt is any reason one has to doubt what the prosecution is trying to prove in its case.

So when you take the totality of the evidence:

1) the internet searches on Casey's computer for 'suffocation' and 'foolproof suffocation' the same day (or day before) Caylee died

2) the close proximity of the body to Casey's home in some woods, double wrapped in plastic bags, put into a duffle bag, and hidden behind some logs

3) the tape placed over the nose and mouth of the body

4) the absolutely cockamamie and obviously fabricated story Casey's mother gave for why 'chloroform' was searched for on Casey's computer during the time of Caylee's disappearance (this wasn't covered in this video, but Dr. Grande's breakdown of this case covers it, and it's worth listening to)

5) her own mother's testimony on the 9-1-1 call that it smelled like a dead body had been in Casey's car

6) Casey's bewildering behavior that was specifically calculated to only mislead and confuse investigators during the entire time Casey was supposed to have been unaware that her child was deceased, but rather only missing

7) again, the defense's bumbling internal contradictions of its own premises and main points

8) Casey's diary entries explaining that she's sure she made the right decision, and that she's the happiest she's ever been literally just weeks after her child has disappeared

9) her outright fabrication of the supposed kidnapper

10) the defense's rather criminal misrepresentation of her own father, falsely alleging that he molested her during childhood (i'm amazed he never sued for defamation of character)

11) her frequent partying during the weeks after Caylee's disappearance (this speaks directly to her motive: to regain the free lifestyle she had prior to motherhood)

12) her unwillingness to report her child missing, instead having her mother discover Casey's whereabouts and phoning it in herself

13) the polarized contrast between her mother's hysterical call for help versus Casey's calm, numb, careless demeanor in that very same phone call

14) the fact that even the judge believed the state had proven their case, and was fully convinced she'd be found guilty (also in Dr. Grande's video)

-(and this list goes on for dozens more points)-

then it really is a phantasmagorical degree of denial of the obvious to suggest there is a good *reason* to doubt Casey's guilt here. Sure, you could resort to conspiratorial or schizophrenic thinking like you could to doubt that the earth is spherical, or that Elvis is still alive, or any number of other obvious facts about reality, but that isn't reasonable, and thankfully, it isn't how our judicial system normally operates. It's certainly not supposed to be how it operates. I would call those 'delusional doubts' rather than reasonable ones, and I think that would be objectively true to say since every single piece of evidence points to Casey. Yet delusion is the only mental state one could assume to doubt this woman's guilt, and it's exasperating trying to explain that to people who think they've somehow championed reason or justice by defending her or unabashedly proclaiming there is any good *reason* to doubt her guilt. Casey's guilt is the one explanation for which every single piece of evidence is accounted seamlessly. There simply isn't a reasonable doubt to be found, and shame on anyone who refuses to call a spade a spade here.

@Scott Demirjian that's not what reasonable doubt means in law.

@Scott Demirjian that's not what reasonable doubt means in law.

didn't you know? to be a member of this jury you had to have a iq lower or equal to 65!

didn't you know? to be a member of this jury you had to have a iq lower or equal to 65!

@Scott Demirjian Reasonable doubt is anything without proof

@Scott Demirjian Reasonable doubt is anything without proof

@Xyz0321 Wer is it reasonable, though? I think that's my point here. Is it reasonable to contradict your most important assertions to create doubt? Is it reasonable to default to conspiracy-think when most of the evidence available would fit very cleanly into the theory that Casey killed her child? Any other explanation/defense is a square peg being wedged into the round hole that was the evidence. Her behavior simply cannot be even remotely explained in any other reasonable way than to begin with the premise that she wanted her child gone.

There is nothing reasonable about doubting Casey's guilt in this case. Baez didn't present reasonable doubt - he simply gaslit a jury the way a conman sells you something you don't need at a price you can't afford. Doubting her guilt is objectively unreasonable and frankly delusional.

Doesn't matter. All he did was raise reasonable doubt. That's all that matters in a criminal case.

Doesn't matter. All he did was raise reasonable doubt. That's all that matters in a criminal case.

Exactly his defense isn't even half decent and an incompetent juri fell for it letting a sociopath murderer like Casey walk out free making a mockery of the justice system every single person in that juri should be ashamed for their entire lives

Exactly his defense isn't even half decent and an incompetent juri fell for it letting a sociopath murderer like Casey walk out free making a mockery of the justice system every single person in that juri should be ashamed for their entire lives

@Brynna C is your interpretation objectively more reasonable than mine? I quoted him word for word. You deviated heavily from what he said. The jury needed to vote based upon what was more reasonable and empirical.

He wasn't saying they "think" that's what happened. Initially, he was asserting that they knew that's what happened.

@Brynna C is your interpretation objectively more reasonable than mine? I quoted him word for word. You deviated heavily from what he said. The jury needed to vote based upon what was more reasonable and empirical.

He wasn't saying they "think" that's what happened. Initially, he was asserting that they *knew* that's what happened.

I mean idk, but he may have meant something more along the lines of "you think she was murdered, we think she drowned accidentally, we'll never really know the truth" but that's just how I interpreted it.

I mean idk, but he may have meant something more along the lines of "you think she was murdered, we think she drowned accidentally, we'll never really know the truth" but that's just how I interpreted it.

This is why I refused to become an Attorney.     I cannot lie this brazenly.

This is why I refused to become an Attorney.     I cannot lie this brazenly.


If you were dumb enough to be on the jury and think she wasn't guilty despite ALL the evidence... you have issues lol


She claims right there that she talked to her daughter a minute or few minutes right then on 911 call.  That little girl never had a nanny ever in her life their all lying about that  nannies are expensive if you go through a reputable service


The most interesting thing about this case is Caseys Lawyer. That was pure magic, what a pro! Hes def going straight to hell tho. Do not pass go do not collect $200 dollars


She’s a pathological liar.  Who can anyone believe anything she says?


She’s the reason you should get rid of double jeopardy


Why was the father of the murdered kid never mentioned in media coverage?  Not as a suspect, it’s obvious who the killer was, but just as an interested party?


How did she become such a monster when her parents seem so nice?

Do some more research about her parents and you'll see the mom isn't nice at all. She's controlling, argumentative, angry, narcissistic, the list goes on.


what did it is the defense attorney saying "remember, you can only convict her guilty if youre absolutely sure". a lot of jurors thought she was guilty, but they knew they didnt know beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's all it took. all the evidence points to her being guilty. all of it. homegirl literally google searched how to suffocate her kid... like... i just dont see any reasonable conclusion to make other than casey did it


Just finished a research essay about this case, so sad.


she said Jeffrey had a nice house and then when the interrogator spoke and said talk about when you got off work and she said she went up to the apartment to get catylee and then she said her female co worker moved three months before to new york but said she stopped working there a few weeks before


Any good mother Would of called them cops if someone or a babysitter took their child. I’d be knocking doors down looking for my son. Ain’t no way I’m gonna go out partying and whatever else after someone took my son. I look at it that way as most moms would and it’s just ridiculous. I can’t believe she got away with this.


I wonder if that lawyer is proud of what he did. :\


The defense lawyer might have had a strong narrative ability, but his tastes on suit ties were awful


"Fake it til you make it" has a whole other meaning for Casey


Completely self-centered narcissist. I feel sorry for her daughter and her parents...but the later honestly helped lead her on this path by not holding her accountable when she skipped school and bailed her out of every kind of debt or guilt. I'm pretty sure they are aware of that too. Must be some weight to carry.


Casey killed her daughter so she could ditch her parental responsibility and live a single, party life.


The way that EVERYONE is concerned and crying, and this cold blooded woman is like 😐👍


you can't make an un-unravelable lie, you need to be a theoretical physicist for that


It's so obvious that she's guilty. Just goes to show trial by jury doesn't work.


"The car smelled like there was a dead body" that was the red flag out the start.


57:33 BOOOOOOM!! This is what in Spain we call "as my last day in the convent, I prefer to shit inside it in that moment". True or not, was definitely a Hail Mary in the last second of the game. José Báez was an exceptional devil's lawyer, tbh.


this is so weird just how much casey lied


So who did it then? Did I miss that part? Are they still looking? Wow I just can't believe how this ended. How come??????


What an absolutely disgusting human being. How do you defend someone like that.


I notice that when the three detectives were interrogating her in the office, they didn't sound like cops. They didn't sound measured and controlled. They weren't using any detective tricks. At that point, they were just three fathers getting frustrated with a mother who didn't seem to give a damn about her daughter.

What you just described is a detective trick

There is also a sense of emergency as the child might still be alive

Yeah. She was in control. They weren't. I mean, she wasn't fooling anyone, but she was calmed and they were losing it.

I mean, if you were led on a wild goose chase, with a bunch of lies and having to drive to different address, i would be pissed too

totally agree with you.<br>but I also understand that they are detectives of missing persons, not homicides. As Jacob 2020 said.

totally agree with you.
but I also understand that they are detectives of missing persons, not homicides. As Jacob 2020 said.

woman are favored in court its the sad reality

Feel bad for those detectives. I can’t imagine how upsetting of a situation they were put it dealing with her. She played them and they couldn’t do a thing about it. She was in control the whole time. It should’ve been the other way around.

Yes i also caught up on that if they were homicide detectives, it would have been a lot different.

They were missing persons detective, not homicide detectives. If it were homicide detectives on that interview it would have gone a lot different. Missing persons job is only to find people not try to interrogate for murder


30:00 is when the ma kinda came to relization that she probably killedher daughter how she was speaking about her daughter like she is in the past. Smh!!!


The verdict was controversial. On the other hand, I don't think I'm smarter than all these police officers, detectives or the judge.


Prosecution ought to be ashamed of themselves wtf


As far as I'm concerned she killed her daughter
I can't believe she's free
I'm mean just look at those internet searches


Her parents raised and enabled a pathological liar.  It’s always seemed incredible that her parents believed her story for so long.  They coddle her, calling her honey, sweetheart, darling.  I think they’ve always been afraid of her.  She ruled the roost.

@theblasblas Well, we don't know if that was a lie. I mean, it is very likely. But she must have earned this level of psychopathy somehow

Why didn't the grandparents just adopt Caylee?

@Grande Capo I pity the father, having to see his daughter make lies about him and throw him under the bus just so she wouldn't have to deal with the repercussions of her crime.

That's exactly what I picked up on, it's a shame because they're good people, but they also enabled and somewhat created a monster.

If I had showed up one day without my son- my parents may have beaten me half to death if I didn't IMMEDIATELY have an explanation of where he was. There's no damn way they would have been supporting my ass or calling me "sweetheart" while I'm sitting in jail.


There should be a test that estimates the stupidity and naïveté of every jury..

Well this one would’ve fail with honours


This woman being free is only making her believe that she's unbeatable.

I'm nauseous by only seeing her damn face.


*died in the pool so naturally had to wrap her in duct tape, a blanket, a laundry bag, drop her in a swamp, google suffocation on the day of, waited a month to say anything and pathologically lied throughout the investigation


She basically did what chris Watts did killed her children for a new life


Just like O.J. (also media circus) she got away with it.


Total miscarriage of justice!!..Casey will answer for her horrific deeds one day, sadly not by our failed justice system.


Casey has that same psychotic twinkle in her eye that my ex had


Her cries are laughs at the end when she hears her Verdict. She just trying to pretend.


How??? I Cannot believe this..She was GUILTY!!!! I'll never get the time back watching this. I'm left really Upset.


god, if I was Casey and my child got kidnapped, assuming she didn't plan this shit because I'm only seven minutes in, I'd be freaking the fock out.
that's my focking kid!

god, if I was Casey and my child got kidnapped, assuming she didn't plan this shit because I'm only seven minutes in, I'd be freaking the fock out.
*that's my focking kid!*


Does America ever imprison cold blooded murders 🤷🏻♀


What an amazing system at work... Just so well made... It just Works... ya'know?


OK. This is an old case, but why is the father of Caylee never mentioned? Who is he? Or was she a test tube baby?


Did the jury just forget her Internet search and her diary entry and her partying.


Y’all do know that people were killed by authorities on the suspicion of being guilty of things, not actual evidence, but we made the courts humane in todays world. You people always yap about humane this and humane that, centuries ago, she would have been put to death on the gallows on these facts, because she’s definitely guilty even without clear-cut evidence she actually did it. It’s we know everything but can’t actually prove it. So thanks to all you weak hearted people who put a stop to the old ways 👍👍<br>No justice for the baby.

Y’all do know that people were killed by authorities on the suspicion of being guilty of things, not actual evidence, but we made the courts humane in todays world. You people always yap about humane this and humane that, centuries ago, she would have been put to death on the gallows on these facts, because she’s definitely guilty even without clear-cut evidence she actually did it. It’s we know everything but can’t actually prove it. So thanks to all you weak hearted people who put a stop to the old ways 👍👍
No justice for the baby.


From her childhood till adulthood she lied and did not get punished. In many developed countries giving punishment to children is seen as bad parenting. But sometimes these are required for cases like this. Skipping school for whole one-half year without getting punished - is simply unimaginable. Also getting pregnant and childbirth at young age is also a problem. This woman does not even know how to organize her own life. How can she bring up a child? Parenting is a huge burden on her. Teenage pregnancy, giving birth before marriage - all cause to this sort of problem. Sometimes, I feel, a little conservative society is necessary to avoid some problems lie this one..


The infamous words of Roderick Heffley "Listen to me. No matter what they ask you, no matter how hard they push, deny, deny, deny; even if they figure it out, never ever admit to anything".

holy shit, this child murder youtube video is just like diary of a wimpy kid!


Her lawyers, after successfully causing a miscarriage of justice, shamed all the decent people who thought Casey was guilty, even though it was still totally obvious that she was.

@genobambino I'm playing with you geno. You said she is unattractive. Sure you wouldn't slip it into her? If the answer is no, I don't believe you.

Kasper Vestergaard You need yo be more specific. I wouldn’t what? I wouldn’t rub it in after I stole a not-guilty verdict? No I wouldn’t. I’d slink off and not take questions. But maybe that’s not what you’re asking...

@genobambino You never answered my question.

You don’t actually have to have hard proof or even more proof than they had. You just need to convince the jury. A lot of cases are convicted in circumstantial evidence and the culprit getting caught in lies. Your point about the death penalty may be a good one though.

@genobambino "everyone who !thought! she was guilty" And that is it! Thought has nothing to do with it! You need hard evidence someone did the crimes you accuse them of. And the state didnt privde enough hard evidence that she did! I also think she did it! But you cant and should not sentence someone to death without 100% proof! <br>I bet my left kidney that if they tried for life in Prison she would be in Jail already..

@genobambino "everyone who !thought! she was guilty" And that is it! Thought has nothing to do with it! You need hard evidence someone did the crimes you accuse them of. And the state didnt privde enough hard evidence that she did! I also think she did it! But you cant and should not sentence someone to death without 100% proof!
I bet my left kidney that if they tried for life in Prison she would be in Jail already..

@RearAdmiralTootToot A jury should never use "sense" or quess what happened. <br>Its the job of the state and the district attorny to PROOF you did something wrong without reasonable doubt! They are the ones who failed! They didnt proof it 100% So the only verdict can be not quilty.

@RearAdmiralTootToot A jury should never use "sense" or quess what happened.
Its the job of the state and the district attorny to PROOF you did something wrong without reasonable doubt! They are the ones who failed! They didnt proof it 100% So the only verdict can be not quilty.

@genobambino Don't think you understood me correctly.

Kasper Vestergaard No. I understand the duty to try your hardest to defend her in court, but after I won I wouldn’t run to the nearest microphone and admonish everyone who thought she was guilty — especially if I knew she was guilty too, as they doubtless did. Just feel relieved that you won in the face of mountains of evidence and a clearly narcissistic client and leave it at that.

i honestly think they knew she was guilty really ...that Biase(sp) was just a nasty s.o.b. ...i read some not so good things about him .. some things he did before he became her lawyer were really shady ......

@GRIM No it was the jury's fault for not using sense.  If you had to bet your life that she was innocent or guilty, which way would you vote?

Her lawyer accused George of molesting Casey in opening statements and then never mentioned it again...such a sick trick to get some sort of sympathy from the jury and to discredit a grieving grandfather

Her lawyer was getting his beak wet and in it for the fun like any guy was doing what any straight single guy would do if he had a law degree and a 20 year old attractive female was in need of some help

She was guilty There s no doubt about that, she knew she was dead that's why she hid the fact that she was supposedly missing, what mother in her right mind wouldn't run for help to the police to help find her daughter, she told lie after lie and hindered the police from finding her because she didn't want her found dead or alive and now she's free to live her life without the child she she so callously disregarded and murdered, she's evil

@Frank Grimes shaming her family is not the job of a lawyer. Who tricked you people into thinking this shit?

They were just doing their job, I hate the outcome, but it is the district attorney who FAILED miserably.

i know right, afterward they should just go "lol jk she DID do it"

The lawyer is just doing his job. It's his job as a defender and he was fantastic. But it's so fucking appalling that the woman got off free and did not do her time for the murder. It was the prosecutor's fault for not giving a better presentation.

Using a tactic from devil's advocate, is not liking this man reason enough to convict him.

By virtue, her lawyers are addressing mostly everyone in these comments


I totally get the point that lying is a coping mechanism but if I were to hide my child after they drowned in a pool I wouldnt duct tape their mouth and nose and I dont see any reason to either.

Exactly, and she looked up suffocation a day before it happened and journaled now she was the happiest she ever been, the people who were on the jury should live the rest of there lives knowing they failed this little girl.


Bro she is almost Light Yagami with those frickin lies damn


saying they were the best grandparents she had and correcting to has ... damn


OMG so I'm pretty sure my family bought a picture from her at the hulk ride. I knew I remember her face because sorry but I thought she was hot. WOW


“Netflix, Chipotle expansions plans light up StockTwits” reading during verdict read 😂😂


Rarely am I so angry. Her attitude with people trying to HELP HER just shows how little she cares for others. Repulsive.

@Kat 🇺🇦 you have to understand, in that situation, every person helping you to find out the truth IS your enemy. they dont really care about her. they only care about that little girl. the very thing that was holding her back and she got rid of it.

liller many thanks that was my original meaning

@Le Quack no, but she picked the perfect man for the job, that badass lawyer :D

@Vicious Vegan Since PoPo goes after young white women right away everyone knows that, her lying every time she opened her mouth and driving them onto wild goose chases didn't persuaded them that she is inoscent...

@Vicious Vegan  Indeed,   wouldn't want any so-called help from "Tara from Michigan, Mark's psycho ex-wife"

Cesare I think OP means they were originally trying to help her find her daughter, and she wasn’t really cooperating

they were NOT trying to help her. they tried to get information out of her that would help convict her. she knew that.


So there are a bunch of just normal people who decide in the end? and who's pullin off the best show wins? Wow, thats odd. But what for do you have a judge?


3:10 She spoke to her 3 yo daughter through a phone?


It’s so annoying she tries to act smart by just saying bs or lying the whole time


Waaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute, how dafuq is the opening statement of the defence: "Caylee died in the family swimming pool" And then the closing argument is "It cannot be proven without any reasonable doubt"...wtf is this?!


"OH SHIT I NEED TO COME UP WITH A NAME FOR THE IMAGINARY MEXICAN PERSON WHO KIDNAPPED MY DAUGHTER UHHHHHHHHH"<br>"Fernandez-Gonzalez."

"OH SHIT I NEED TO COME UP WITH A NAME FOR THE IMAGINARY MEXICAN PERSON WHO KIDNAPPED MY DAUGHTER UHHHHHHHHH"
"Fernandez-Gonzalez."

I had a spanish teacher called "Maria Lopez-Lopez" - it sounds like a made up name.^^


What a poor excuse for a human, no words!


Jury were total useless, And failed to give justice to that poor child.


So her tactics and lies worked. Not just with her parents. Unbeliavable.


they say only 2% of the world's population have the lowest IQ. how the hell did they all end up in the same jury?


What did Casey Marie say was the reason she looked up suffocation on the internet?

Doesn't matter, it's circumstantial at best


This really pisses me off that she got off with it


how tf did she not get life in prison? what a joke. she clearrly killed caylee.


I’m italian pizza pasta and this ruined my day, thank you american justice sistem (i mean the italian is even not better i guess)


a woman who no longer wants to take care of her child does not have the right to have him adopted or place him in an orphanage ?


While on the stand she had the best RBF!


some stuff doesnt make sense tho… if she drowned in a pool, why did she duct tape the mouth and nose? and how could you just dump your kid then go partying? its not emotional, i feel like its evidence acting like that and doing those things… but whatevs im not a professional lol


Miscarriage of justice... Jury can they really face themselves


When  some people say good morning, it's better to look out of it window and check if the sun goes up or down.


Made the beat and murdered it , Casey Anthony


i don’t understand how these defense attorneys & jurors can sleep after these years of knowing they set a child murderer free. it just puts me at a loss for words.

@DPR Contracting I understand what you're saying, but prosecution is based on providing as much evidence as possible that points to the truth about what happened. They are not at liberty to make up stories, only talk to the evidence. The defense on the other hand, seems to be able to create whatever narrative they choose, with no evidence, to subvert the truth. A fair trial is not about who can win this game, it's about truth on both sides.

@Sharkskin Boy Everybody is entitled to an adequate and robust defence.  You could just as easily say how can prosecutors sleep at night with what they do.  They are both essential parts of an adversarial justice system.  And no justice system is perfect.

The fact that she was not even charged with ANYTHING for child neglect or abuse even. At the VERY LEAST neglect. Like what the hell.

Only by having excellent defence lawyers such as this will police and prosecutors also be excellent, and therefore we can all trust in the criminal justice system to catch baddies and lock them up, and to reduce/ eliminate miscarriages of justice.
The prosecution in this case were substandard and as such, a likely murderer walked free.
Everyone must be afforded a fair trial in court. This is a foundation of our society.
We may all be angry and disappointed that the prosecution and police investigation in this case were inadequate but that’s where the focus should be - a learning review as to why this case failed is the right thing to do to ensure that murderers don’t walk free in the future.
In the uk we got rid of Doyle jeopardy which means - if you did it, eventually you’ll get convicted once the forensic evidence catches up!

Unfortunately the U.S. justice system is broken in so many ways.

Unfortunately the U.S. justice system is broken in so many ways.

That's why people say there's a special place in hell for defense attorneys.

@Electric Soup i have a feeling you’re entirely right

@Electric Soup i have a feeling you’re entirely right

@Артем Евженков literally what’s wrong with you?🤨

@Артем Евженков literally what’s wrong with you?🤨

@althea 72 I have a feeling juries are picked if they seem not too bright...

@nick n
It was something like 10 women/7 men including alternates.
They said they couldn’t give her the death penalty which is infuriating because they were asked if they would be able to do that as part of their qualifying questions. I don’t have a better alternative but juries frighten me.

@Sharkskin Boy Sociopaths do know better, luckily. Many are functional members of society, and not murderers. Casey is her own monster.

@Dea Dean but it does show ones true colors and can easily be used against them

@Sharkskin Boy there was absolutely zero evidence in her defense all that they had were words on the other hand they had already found several pieces of clear evidence that she killed her they found a poem she wrote that was psychotic she was trying to make herself feel better by writing a poem talking about how her decision was justified then they found the child’s lifeless corpse in a swamp with tape around her face but they still believed that it was a accident in a pool and if that doesn’t show you how idiot and horrible they handle this then she also completely lied the entire time while talking with the detectives they even called her out on it THEN she literally preceded to entirely change her story when she noticed that they weren’t buying it

@Mosisusasu Well looking at this specific case, I don't believe for a minute that Casey's father was abusing her, and that therefore she was just doing what she had learned to do in the past, keeping everything quiet. Really? So when her father abused her each time, did she also learn to go to hot body contests a few days later, like she did after her daughter died? That was clearly a BS story concocted by the lawyer and Casey and it's just disgusting what they did to her father to try to avoid responsibility. That's not defense, that's blatant lying and it's criminal. Listen to the lawyer's voice when he told the court that, I cringed when I heard it, he almost had an apologetic tone in his voice like he didn't believe it anymore than he knew anyone else would. Anyhow, it is what it is. Thanks for your opinion anyway, I appreciate it.

@Артем Евженков yeah that is kinna true , but what does that have to do with this 🤣🤣 we are talking about the defendant lawyer

It is her child, she is to decide, to kill or not. Not you

It is her child, she is to decide, to kill or not. Not you

Артем Евженков

@Sharkskin Boy I think you're being too harsh. Criminal defence attorneys aren't there to game the system, they are an important part of it. Their job is to treat every case as if their client is innocent and offer them the best defence they can. While this does sadly mean that some sociopaths walk away, it also means that some people who look super guilty but are actually innocent get to avoid going to prison for something they didn't do.

Another thing to note is the difference between the public and private image of these attorneys. Yes they are going to make statements at the end congratulating themselves and their teams, because that's also part of representing your client in their rightful legal defence. But I'll bet you in many cases like that they secretly hate that they won the case and the alleged perp walks free.

Just because they publicly celebrate, doesn't mean they don't privately regret the way that things turned out.

@Mosisusasuyeah and her lawyer is pretty good too lol

@Mosisusasuyeah and her lawyer is pretty good too lol

I dunno if the burden's really on the lawyers. They are to assume whoever they defend is innocent, as everyone has a right to a legal defense.

Though I'm sure in cases like this they hope that their client loses anyway. Sadly, they didn't.

@Sharkskin Boy okay think about this the defence didn't know for sure wether she is the murder or not and it is not the defendant job to make judgment , defendant just have to do his/her best and defend . Lets say the person is not guilty but there are some things that say he is and the defendant just make judgment on his own and didn't even try to defend him properly he will make a grave mistake. So the defendant never make judgment (should never) and defend with whatever they got

A lot of the evidence described in this video was not shared with the jury. They didn't hear about the foolproof suffocation search, for instance. They were told a different story, one I'd have trouble believing myself. I think the blame is on the prosecution, not the jury.

@BuddhaSTL I think that’s the most frustrating part of all of this; knowing that this is pretty much as good as it gets.

Respectfully, there needs to be proof, not likelihood. It’s better to allow a few criminals to go free than to find a few innocent people guilty. This is the worst part of the best legal system in the world.

@Sharkskin Boy If I recall correctly, there WERE rumors that Baez and Anthony were caught in compromising positions, but I don't think they were ever proven to be true or not. But personally I don't even doubt it at this point.

The problem is.. you need to ave lawyers liek this because you need to make sure you put the least amount of innocent people in jail - but obviously we know its not fool proof.

The belief is.. to let 10 guilty men go than let 1 innocent man suffer...

She had a good lawyer.. the state didn't do a good enough job.. when everything was in their hands.. the lawyer used the fact they relied on character assignation vs concrete evidence as their strategy.

Just because if a defense attorney doesn’t do his/her best work to get their defendants free the whole trial can be nullified and eventually the defendant can walk free as well and this attorney would be disbarred. So a defense attorney must do his/her best and all the decision is made by juros, based on what was presented to them only, and not in what the media e other people’s points of view, although these may be more correct. It’s part of trials rules and specified by laws. If anyone wants to change that he/she has to talk to their law makers.

@Manolya ATALAY send the links here please ... I'm googling every single details about her

George (Casey father commited suicide after this)

George (Casey father commited suicide after this)

@Dea Dean If a citizen helps a criminal to get away with a crime by lying to and misleading police that in itself is a crime. Yet when a defense laywer manufactures a story to help their client get away with a crime that's OK. Bear in mind it's the lawyers, not the perpetrators, who come up with these detailed, elaborate stories for the judge. I agree that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but I don't believe making up BS stories for the sake of averting punishment is what a fair defense is about. But of course everyone is happy with that arrangement because that's what keeps the system going around. It's not about truthfulness, it's about who can outsmart who. One big game.

I read some of juror's thoughts on this case. They somehow regret of their decisions and thinking it will stick with them forever. They knew they could have pushed it a bit further. Since it was obviously a murder, then who is the murderer? No camera records? no local witnesses of the car? What was the whole point of the trial? Are we saving Casey out of jail or finding who murdered Caylee?

@Susan Davis lying doesn't equate to a confession. It's just the law.

@Susan Davis lying doesn't equate to a confession. It's just the law.

@Dea Dean  there was plenty of evidence against her to put her away for good, from the moment she lied about knowing jeff, she should’ve been tried & found guilty. these people failed the justice system, innocent caylee & every other victim who’s attackers have been set free.

@Sharkskin Boy I judge funeral homes more than defense lawyers providing perpetrators with their right for an attorney.

@Zinc Bernard It's a pretend happy family. They keep up appearances. It explains most of this.

By knowing they served the justice system correctly. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

@Sharkskin Boy Yeah I mean they are just doing their job, and they probably use the money they got to help them sleep at night, but I agree with you on the gloating at the end, it was so cringeworthy, I didn't really pay attention to what the jury looked like, but I am guessing mostly men, and she was kinda hot/petite, so they probably went full white knight to the rescue on her. If it was a bald dude he woulda been locked up.

Where is John Doe (Se7en) when you need him?

Where is John Doe (Se7en) when you need him?

I agree, but I don't believe it's the jurors' fault. The defense team did a great job and the jurors legally made the right choice based on the evidence they had in front of them. What seriously amazes me the most is how those defense attorneys can look at themselves in the mirror. Even Casey I can understand, she's a sociopath so she doesn't know any better. But they choose to devote their lives to play the system and make a mockery of justice for their own personal gain. And to top it all off, they have the audacity to stand up on their soapbox at the end and gloat about it in front of everyone. That's a truly disgusting, lowlife scumbag act. Anyone with a modicum of dignity would just keep quiet and walk away. Anyhow I hope they're proud of themselves and their life's contribution to this world. May God have mercy on their souls.

Its despicable that she got away with it, the fact she never reported it until a month later should of been a life sentence. What was the grandmother thinking. Clearly no one cared about the poor girl or something wouldve been done sooner


Something not discussed is that she grew up with her law enforcement detective father.  She is comfortable with that personality type and understands how to manipulate and get around and maneuver authority.

George was a deputy sheriff in Ohio with a job performance like Barney Fife.He was fired When the media contacted the sheriff department in Ohio they chose to not speak for or against George.It was pretty bad.So that bar was already set very low

@Dat Boi Exactly. Beyond reasonable doubt is not the same as "Beyond any far-flung theoretical possibility" or literally nobody could eve be convicted of anything. You could just argue that you can't prove they weren't abducted by aliens who altered Casey's brain and killed the little girl. You could argue that a person who claims they saw a murder first-hand might just be imagining that particular thing. Is that reasonable? Of course not! It would seem so far beyond reasonable doubt that this woman is so very obviously guilty, I just cannot believe the verdict. It's really quite distressing, to be honest. What's that saying, that stupidity and evil are the same if you judge by the results.

nardinit That’s complete bullshit. It was 9 women and 8 men.

Holly Brooke Just one minor thing, it’s never legally been “beyond any doubt”. It just has to be reasonable.

When my brother was in highschool and the few years after too he hung out with the main cop in our town and they got into so much crap together and Tony always said to my bro “dude my dads a cop I have the whole playbook.”<br>When my bro got pulled over for an illegal turn with the son in the passenger seat the dad just told him to get lost not thinking that he walked away from the traffic stop with all of the evidence

When my brother was in highschool and the few years after too he hung out with the main cop in our town and they got into so much crap together and Tony always said to my bro “dude my dads a cop I have the whole playbook.”
When my bro got pulled over for an illegal turn with the son in the passenger seat the dad just told him to get lost not thinking that he walked away from the traffic stop with all of the evidence

@Holly Brooke By that standard no criminal would be jail right?  You can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt somebody did something unless you were there and saw them do it yourself.  I think that jury did society a great disservice and that murdered child an injustice

@nardinit I agree with you that they weren't taken in by her lies.  I meant more that she showed no fear, no remorse, no hesitation.  When she was backed into a corner she plowed right on without hardly batting an eye.  She was in no way intimidated by authority figures.  And I believe that is because she grew up running circles around her cop father.... I mean besides her obvious sociopath lack of conscience

nardinit they were not all females and most of them have publicly stated they thought she was guilty but it was pressed so much before hand that if their was any sliver of room for doubt they could not convict that they felt they had to say not guilty because the prosecution could not prove without any doubt.

Maybe, but she didn't fool anyone in this case. Her family and detectives knew. Her lawyer did an amazing job at creating doubt. According to other comments the jury was all female. I'm sure they would have convicted her if she was a man. She got lucky and got off, but not because of her lying ability at all. All her lies were exposed.


Detective: do you know what race the nanny is??
Casey: BLACK Puerto Rican mixed
Jesus Christ we always suspects white people needs to stop 🛑 🤞🏼


"Shes been able to lie her way out of everything her whole life and it always worked with her parents but its not going to work with police detectives" Plot twist... She lied her way through the entire investigation and trial and was found not guilty, meaning it actually all worked and to this day she still has never had to take responsibility for her actions.


She won’t call the cops for her daughter but she will about a drink thrown in her face.

bro u got me so weak... i'm so fucked up i read that twice

@Kate W I do not understand how this verdict found her not guilty

I just looked this up she really called police within the hour for her shirt but 31 days for her daughter

I mean, u can have another daughter BUT NOBODY SHOULD THROW DRINKS AT MY FACE AND I MEAN NO. ONE. ( /s ) Lol she has fucked up priorities.

Lol I just came from that video on tiktok 😂


Ok but is the father part true bc if it is that’s disturbing


Casey Anthony’s case is so bizarre, the pathological lying about everything is just insane.

@Nunuv Yabuiznez It is always assumed casey's family had no ties to the judicial system, yet casey's dad was a former policeman. I say that definitely presents a possibility for there being ties with police and potentially other powerful, influential figures of the law.  Politics can play a huge part in life, such as getting a job and getting into the right school....or getting away with things you shouldn't get away with.

@Nunuv Yabuiznez  It's not surprising at all that parents would want to believe their kids are innocent. I don't think anyone is surprised by that. What is surprising is that for whatever the fuck reason, everyone else in that courtroom(besides the prosecution) seems to believe casey is innocent just as much as her parents do. And it seems all we can do about it now is complain about it in hindsight. My skin crawls whenever I hear her speak, I can barely even look at her.

TheLegend27 saying that they were easily fooled is a bit harsh tho lmao

TheLegend27 I don’t think Alekka is necessarily blaming the family lol

It just makes sense;
Nobody would suspect their own daughter. And we can’t really blame them for wanting to believe her innocence. They’re family after all.
The justice system, on the other hand, has no personal ties to her and are professionals, so you’d expect them to figure it out. It’s their job.

If anything we’re bashing them not her relatives

TheLegend27 I don’t think Alekka is necessarily blaming the family lol

It just makes sense;
Nobody would suspect their own daughter. And we can’t really blame them for wanting to believe her innocence. *They’re family after all.*
The justice system, on the other hand, has no personal ties to her and are professionals, so you’d expect them to figure it out. *It’s their job.*

If anything we’re bashing them not her relatives

codemiesterbeats yeah, it’s indeed bizarre. They don’t seem to have a ‘motive ‘? for the lies either. Idk if I’m articulating this very well, but usually people lie for some reason. I.e.;to gain something, to get out of something(trouble, legal issues, work issues, relationships etc.), to avoid hurting your feelings sometimes(does this dress make me look fat?? “NOOO!!”this lil white lie, if necessary). But pathological liars, will lie just to.... lie. No rhyme or reason why. They just lie outta habit. Pathology. They’re driven to do it. It becomes so awkward, when you know & THEY know that you know but they still do it!!! Ugh.... it’s so, fukdup.

Pathological liars, sociopaths, and narcissists are surprisingly common.  This case was terrible.  However, I'm worried about the others that are walking free still hurting people.  Casey got caught because she slipped up.

I used to work with a pathological liar it is a very bizarre experience to deal with one. There lies go beyond what a normal person might lie about they stretch even the most basic information. The guy used to work with tried to blame me for his shenanigans he took a water hose and sprayed it all over the back of the store. The boss man chewed me out and later I suppose he found out that he was a pathological liar and he got fired the boss man was nice to me after that. At any rate if you ever meet one and have to deal with one, once you find out they are a pathological liar it makes dealing with them easier because essentially every word that comes out of their mouth is b*******.

I get it that her family is easily fooled by her and that she manipulates them, that's on them. But the whole justice system? That pisses me off!


Juliette Lewis is an actress... highly underrated.