Casey Anthony Responsible for Caylee's Death, Department of Children and Families Says

Categories: Crime
casey-anthony-mug.jpg
Orange County Sheriff's Office
Casey Anthony
A 12-page report released today by the Florida Department of Children and Families says Casey Anthony is "responsible" for Caylee's death and is also responsible for threatening harm upon her and failing to protect her.

As part of an investigation that spanned nearly three years, the DCF report says that through reviewing evidence from law enforcement, the Medical Examiner's Office, and the department's own interviews with family members, they can now close their review with these "verified" findings.

"The Department of Children and Families concludes that the lack of actions by the alleged perpetrator ultimately resulted or contributed in the death of the child/vic...," the report says. "While the cause of death is not known, the Department concludes the death to be as a result of abuse or neglect based on the manner of death by the [medical examiner], and the state of the body upon recovery."

Of the department's accusation that Casey Anthony failed to protect her daughter, it says that while Caylee was missing for 31 days before her mother reported that fact, Anthony's failure to report her own child missing "ultimately resulted in her inability to protect the child from harm."

As for threatening harm, the department again says Anthony's failure to report her daughter missing as the primary reason and also notes that it had been so long that Caylee's remains had already been decomposing before she was even reported missing.

On the accusation that Anthony asphyxiated her daughter, the department says it's "not sustained." It cites the medical examiner's report, in which it says the duct tape over Caylee's mouth was "clearly" placed on her mouth before her body began to decompose, as it was keeping her lower jaw attached to her skull.

The department also says it found no indication of physical injury to Caylee, based on the medical examiner's report, although the medical examiner did rule the death a homicide by unknown cause.

In an interview with a child-protection investigator on August 25, 2008, Anthony was asked about why it took her 31 days to report her daughter missing.

"The mother responded that she did not have a 'falling out' with her parents; she was just living with her boyfriend...," the report says. "She admitted to the CPI that she made some 'bad decisions' during that time period."

There is also a large section of the tenth page that is redacted from the report, under the title of "Decision Regarding Findings and Disposition," as well as several lines redacted from the next page under "Assessment."

Read the entire report below:

Caylee Anthony Death Review 2011 -- Department of Children and Families

Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB. Follow Matthew Hendley on Facebook.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
10 comments
daddyfranks
daddyfranks

All of the media seem to be hung up on the murder aquital. My personal opinion is the the public would accept the not guilty on the murder charge. It is harder to prove. The anger is because she was aquited of ALL ALL ALL charges. The one charge would be accepted but the other charges were impossible to deny. Yes we all feel that she killed her kid BUT. Child neglect and child endangerment. These charges were obvious. How fate had it that the court would gather 12 idiots togather is the strange part of this whole show. How could they deny the other charges I'll never understand.

Daddyfranks
Daddyfranks

AMAZING!    Everyone knew that from the beginning..... OTHER THAN THE JURY.  WHY could they not see that. Forget the murder charge... The other charges held her responsible for failing to protect and care for that child.

read this from NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/Pub......

Obermann
Obermann

And the lawyers pick a jury of morons who will pretty much guarantee Anthony gets away with first degree murder.  Critical evidence isn't able to be used in court (text messages with Casey called her daughter a snot-nosed brat).  The jury, who admits they thought Casey guilty but that the prosecuting attorney didn't prove his case are manipulated idiots who didn't even know the rules of finding (if the prosecutors in the trial convinced the jury that Casey Anthony was guilty...how did they NOT prove their case???  That means they DID prove their case...the jury thought she was guilty.  Amazing.  Now DCF, one of the more dysfunctional service systems we as taxpayers are required to support, bring their crap in after Anthony is free.  This is hopeless, may God protect us from our own corrupt and stupid people.

Csharplaw
Csharplaw

And the government wasted how much money on this report that simply rehashes and summarizes the trial testimony?  Unbelievable. 

Csharplaw
Csharplaw

Allright now we have someone who needs a lesson on the First Amendment.  She was acquitted so she can write any damn thing she pleases.  If you don't like it, don't buy the book or move to Russia, China or Pakistan with Oberman, since he hates jury trials as much as you hate the first amendment, and they don't have any of thos pesky rights in those countries.     

Csharplaw
Csharplaw

The jury did nothing wrong except make the prosecution prove its case, which even a lousy lawyer could see from day one was a piece of shit.  You know a case is bad when even dumbass Larry Seidlin predicted the defense verdict. 

If I was ever wrongly accused of something, I'd love to have that jury.  And if you don't like it I suggest you either move somewhere where there is no right to a jury (Russia, China amd Pakistan come to mind) or go ahead and wipe your ass with a document called the Constitution. 

Alot of American fought and died for the right to a jury trial in the Revolution.  It's a shame that some of us still don't understand or appreciate what they did.   

jonathan comer
jonathan comer

Believing something and proving it is 2 different things. Juries are not supposed to convict on a feeling that someone is guilty or to even think it without the proof and there was simply no proof of murder at all.

Daddyfranks
Daddyfranks

read this article from THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/Pub......

it appears you have made your mind up on emotions rather than fact. there was more than substantial circumstantial evidence to convict. the jury stated that they would not and did not even consider the circumstamntial evidence and called it speculation. the law states that circumstantial evidence should be as compelling as fact. that is why it is allowed in trials. the jury ignored it by their on statement.

Daddyfranks
Daddyfranks

jonathan...... you're right  a jury should not convict on their feelings.  but by law: circumstantial evidence should be held as compelling as fact. the jury was instructed that and ignored it. their feelings was that was speculation.  if circumstantial evidence is accepted in trial and that is why it was shown. their was substantial evidence to convict the pope if he were on trial.

i suggest reading this article from THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/Pub......

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Services

Loading...