PDA

View Full Version : The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3


Pages : 1 [2] 3

RR0004
08-05-2011, 06:42 PM
Taking Casey out of the equation for a moment. Not all women who give birth automatically or ever get the motherly nurturing protective instincts. Regardless of the reasons. Not all do.
So are you saying that it would then be easier for Casey to hurt her own child because she never truly had a motherly attachment? Could explain how she could stuff her child in garbage bags and toss her in the woods.

jon_burrows
08-05-2011, 06:43 PM
I still don't get that whole time thing...nor the change in dates. How do you not know when your child died...accident or no accident? And I don't care if it was Cindy's mistake or not...IMPO...Casey wanted to steer the direction of the investigation as far away from her as possible. And who speaks of their child's abduction without a single tear? Oops...that was after she said it was a "domestic" issue. And the jury thought this was normal behavior for someone who knows her child is dead?

JB explained away the absence of tears due to ugly coping that morphed into Casey's world in front of the jury then spruced it up with a p#n#s in the mouth. It worked.

Regarding June 9th, Tony's statement, page 6 of 145. Anthony said while the defendant lived with her since June 9th...

June 9th date seems to keep popping up even outside the A family. Strange.

http://orlandosentinel.image2.trb.com/orlnews/media/acrobat/2008-08/41844520.pdf

IMO

RR0004
08-05-2011, 07:08 PM
JB explained away the absence of tears due to ugly coping that morphed into Casey's world in front of the jury then spruced it up with a p#n#s in the mouth. It worked.

Regarding June 9th, Tony's statement, page 6 of 145. Anthony said while the defendant lived with her since June 9th...

June 9th date seems to keep popping up even outside the A family. Strange.

http://orlandosentinel.image2.trb.com/orlnews/media/acrobat/2008-08/41844520.pdf

IMO
If the jury bought the "no tears" they're more hopeless than I previously thought.

thedeviledadvocate
08-05-2011, 07:25 PM
Where do you see that?

I see it in the last paragraph of the post I quoted:

"With all due respect, that is what the pro-verdict folks on this board appear to have wrong with their conclusions as well. This isn't a matter of inferior intellect, just inferior reasoning, and that is definately my opinion."

To me this reads that pro-verdict folks used inferior reasoning in coming to their concluisions, and I strongly disagree with that opinion.

The defination of inferior is

lower degree or rank
poor quality or mediocre
of little or less importance, value or merit

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 07:47 PM
Taking Casey out of the equation for a moment. Not all women who give birth automatically or ever get the motherly nurturing protective instincts. Regardless of the reasons. Not all do.

So are you saying that it would then be easier for Casey to hurt her own child because she never truly had a motherly attachment? Could explain how she could stuff her child in garbage bags and toss her in the woods.

You are assuming she did. I don't assume that. There was no evidence presented that absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt proved Casey did either.

coco puff
08-05-2011, 08:17 PM
You are assuming she did. I don't assume that. There was no evidence presented that absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt proved Casey did either.

Duct tape does not reasonably belong anywhere in an accident theory and we know it came from her home and we know George and Cindy did not kill her so, IMO yes she did it beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

gxm
08-05-2011, 08:31 PM
You are assuming she did. I don't assume that. There was no evidence presented that absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt proved Casey did either.

KC admitted that she was the last person with Caylee. Caylee was found in a garbage bag in a swamp. It is quite logical and completely reasonable to put those two pieces together. The only folks presuming anything are those who ignore the clarity of the circumstantial evidence and KC's own words and deeds.

Caligram
08-05-2011, 08:35 PM
The "grief counselor" who was a last-ditch effort by the DT to excuse FCA's behavior may have been brought in for another reason. The subject of family pets was introduced and it was odd that some trial time was used by JB asking CA, GA and LA how their pets were disposed of and who had the burial job. There was emphasis placed on plastic bags and tape. But somehow this also pointed to GA as his job was to dig the graves....so in the jury's already dislike of GA, he buried dead things. Somehow the fact that FCA could have copied the pet idea was never brought into play. This jury was not focused on finding if FCA harmed or intentionally killed Caylee Marie. This jury had their boogey man identified and pointed out to them, the dirty pervert GA, falsely accused constantly by the DT.
This jury didn't waste their time searching for the truth. They just knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the time they went into deliberations, that FCA never harmed Caylee Marie. They never asked themselves how Caylee Marie got the duct tape sealing her nose and mouth, got into plastic bags which were knotted, got into a laundry bag, and then got thrown into the swamp. The pictures of the skull, the bones of little Caylee Marie must have been horrendous. Perhaps too horrendous to think about. Much easier to think about sexual assualt and FCA as the victim.
IMHO

kelian36
08-05-2011, 08:37 PM
If the jury bought the "no tears" they're more hopeless than I previously thought.

No kiddin. :banghead:

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 08:38 PM
KC admitted that she was the last person with Caylee. Caylee was found in a garbage bag in a swamp. It is quite logical and completely reasonable to put those two pieces together. The only folks presuming anything are those who ignore the clarity of the circumstantial evidence and KC's own words and deeds.

I don't pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth to support my theories. I prefer to look at the evidence. For me, there was not enough to believe Caylee was murdered, much less by Casey or that Casey disposed of her body.

kelian36
08-05-2011, 08:38 PM
The "grief counselor" who was a last-ditch effort by the DT to excuse FCA's behavior may have been brought in for another reason. The subject of family pets was introduced and it was odd that some trial time was used by JB asking CA, GA and LA how their pets were disposed of and who had the burial job. There was emphasis placed on plastic bags and tape. But somehow this also pointed to GA as his job was to dig the graves....so in the jury's already dislike of GA, he buried dead things. Somehow the fact that FCA could have copied the pet idea was never brought into play. This jury was not focused on finding if FCA harmed or intentionally killed Caylee Marie. This jury had their boogey man pointed out to them, identified and dirtied over and over again by the DT.
This jury didn't waste their time searching for the truth. They just knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the time they went into deliberations, that FCA never harmed Caylee Marie. They never asked themselves how Caylee Marie got the duct tape sealing her nose and mouth, got into plastic bags which were knotted, got into a laundry bag, and then got thrown into the swamp. The pictures of the skull, the bones of little Caylee Marie must have been horrendous. Perhaps too horrendous to think about. Much easier to think about sexual assualt and FCA as the victim.

Caligram,
EXCELLENT POST
bbm-How sad is it that they never searched for the truth?

kelian36
08-05-2011, 08:44 PM
From the hearing thread.......
I know this is OT, but I still cannot believe this verdict. It has been three weeks and the shock has worn, but once in a while I will allow myself to think about the verdict and it is JUST BEYOND SHOCKING.

One wasn't shocked with John Gotti - we knew what was going on and oh ok, he got off again ...one of these days.

But this - this was an absolute kick in the stomach to pretty much everyone who watched. I myself had to sit down because I could not believe my ears. I just could not believe it.


Solace,
You worded perfectly the way that I feel too.
This was a huge kick in the stomach.

Aedrys
08-05-2011, 08:46 PM
How good or bad the DT did was irrelevant to my post, which is why I didn't talk about the DT's mistakes.

Yes, I remember the "cut the cheese" remark, and I feel it was just as unprofessional as JA's comment about "pigs in a blanket".

I can criticize the DT, just as well as anyone. Over the past 3 years, they were often unprepared. They often filed motions they knew were going to be denied, but filed them anyway. Some of these are just SOP and necessary, but when AL was part of the team, the motions were numerous. JB made many mistakes during the trial. He missed numerous opportunities to impeach the states expert witnesses. He was too polite to witnesses and the jury (if there is such a thing as being too polite). CM was rude while questioning at least on one occasion. DS seemed too timid.

The PT outlawyered the DT at almost every turn, for 3 years.

JB is very inexperienced, and his mistakes could have lost the trial.

When JB would get close to a good moment for the defense, he would get overexcited, and blow it. He did this several times.

JA and LDB are better lawyers than JB, and they called him on almost all his mistakes, which is one reason there were sooooo many objections, sustained.
If JB was as good of a lawyer as JA or LDB or even CM or DS, I think the deliberation time would have been cut in half.

IF Caylee had been murdered, it would have made no difference whether it was via the duct tape or via the chloroform or both. The problem with JA saying "we can only hope", means the state was speculating, and he was admitting they didn't know, so maybe the chloroform didn't kill her, but there goes premeditation, maybe it was the tape that suffocated her, or maybe she wasn't killed at all and died accidently. They did not know what happened, and if the state doesn't know what happened, then how can the jury convict someone on maybe's?

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

BBM. How many freaking maybe's did the defense offer? EVERYTHING was a maybe! So Baez saying we'll never know how the body of Caylee was stolen by Kronk and put in the swamp is way more believable? Baez not even knowing the time of day when Caylee supposedly drowned is more believable? The defense not offering one iota of evidence to support the story they told while the prosecution offered actual evidence in support of what they said is more believable? There was zero evidence of molestation, drowning, George's involvement, and Kronk's involvement, plus ZERO evidence to say that anything the prosecution said was wrong (and I mean proof wise - all their defense was innuendo and inference, nothing to actually prove the prosecution wrong). The prosecution can't be called on for saying "we can only hope" (and I don't even remember then saying that, but I could have missed it) when the defense did so much worse in their OS and during the trial. Lord, I think that may be the only thing the prosecution said that couldn't be proven or wasn't backed up in some kind of way. Can't say the same at all for the defense. Logic fails on this part of the argument, but I agreed with what else was said in this post. All IMO.

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Duct tape does not reasonably belong anywhere in an accident theory and we know it came from her home and we know George and Cindy did not kill her so, IMO yes she did it beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

We don't know she was killed, we don't know who did what.

I have a hard time believing that this duct tape was placed over her face yet it survived everything it did, the hurricane, the water, the bones being gnawed on by animals, the bones being scattered around, the duct tape supposedly not being attached to anything but the hair, ie no facial tissue (it was decomposed), Roy Kronk supposedly poking the skull with a stick and lifting it into the air or whatever physical poking around he did and yet we are to believe the skull, the tape, the hair all stayed perfectly in place enough to deduct it was the cause of death. That's too many leaps for me to conclusively make on that evidence alone.

I can theorize a reason or two why an accident is made to look like a crime. I can make enough possible leaps to make things that give me pause and reasonable doubt to not believe absolutely it was Casey.

I simply don't know. None of us do. I just don't jump to the automatic guilty conclusion others do based on what I saw in the trail.

Aedrys
08-05-2011, 08:53 PM
We don't know she was killed, we don't know who did what.

I have a hard time believing that this duct tape was placed over her face yet it survived everything it did, the hurricane, the water, the bones being gnawed on by animals, the bones being scattered around, the duct tape supposedly not being attached to anything but the hair, ie no facial tissue (it was decomposed), Roy Kronk supposedly poking the skull with a stick and lifting it into the air or whatever physical poking around he did and yet we are to believe the skull, the tape, the hair all stayed perfectly in place enough to deduct it was the cause of death. That's too many leaps for me to conclusively make on that evidence alone.

I can theorize a reason or two why an accident is made to look like a crime. I can make enough possible leaps to make things that give me pause and reasonable doubt to not believe absolutely it was Casey.

I can put my clothes through wet conditions and a dryer and guess what, I will still find hair stuck in bra straps and the like. And getting hair out of things is a pain in the butt. Hair is something that survives regardless of cirumstances (I guess unless it's burned). There was a whole hair mat that survived all of those circumstances. Why is it so hard to believe that if that hair mat survived, the tape stuck to it wouldn't be there? Hair is hardy and easily gets tangled into anything. I know because I have a darn lot of it on my head and it falls out and gets stuck in clothes and other things. It's annoying. It doesn't surprise me that there was enough hair their to keep the tape on the skull after the tissue decomposed.

Since the duct tape was there, this child wasn't drowned, she was murdered. No one covers up a drowning by duct taping a child's face and then throwing that child into swamp in a bag.

gxm
08-05-2011, 08:59 PM
I don't pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth to support my theories. I prefer to look at the evidence. For me, there was not enough to believe Caylee was murdered, much less by Casey or that Casey disposed of her body.

The defendant's words and deeds aren't evidence? That a rather boldly presumptuous path to take toward a verdict, IMO.

ETA: Every day that I return to this thread, I find yet more comments to convince me that the pro-verdict supporters entered the trial phase with both a bias and an agenda.

coco puff
08-05-2011, 09:06 PM
I don't pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth to support my theories. I prefer to look at the evidence. For me, there was not enough to believe Caylee was murdered, much less by Casey or that Casey disposed of her body.

Even though the defendant did not, has not and will not explain the "accident"..? Why do you think she is not talking? IMO there is no innocent way to explain the was Caylee was found. What really happened is way worse then having the world convinced the she is responsible for her child's death but only speculate how it happened.

Dead baby hidden in swamp with duct tape equals murder IMO

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 09:12 PM
I can put my clothes through wet conditions and a dryer and guess what, I will still find hair stuck in bra straps and the like. And getting hair out of things is a pain in the butt. Hair is something that survives regardless of cirumstances (I guess unless it's burned). There was a whole hair mat that survived all of those circumstances. Why is it so hard to believe that if that hair mat survived, the tape stuck to it wouldn't be there? Hair is hardy and easily gets tangled into anything. I know because I have a darn lot of it on my head and it falls out and gets stuck in clothes and other things. It's annoying. It doesn't surprise me that there was enough hair their to keep the tape on the skull after the tissue decomposed.

Since the duct tape was there, this child wasn't drowned, she was murdered. No one covers up a drowning by duct taping a child's face and then throwing that child into swamp in a bag.

Drowning is one theory of cause of death given the medical examiner could not find one. There are many possible causes of death, both deliberate and accidental. We simply don't know and most likely never will. I try not to make absolutely judgements of what all people do or don't do because where people are concerned, nothing much is absolute and many things beyond what you think are possible.

coco puff
08-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Again, if it was an accident, we all would know what happened. There would be no need to guess if it was all perfectly innocent. But it is NOT so we will never know.

Caligram
08-05-2011, 09:18 PM
It is my understanding that RK clarified his first statement regarding the skull. He said that the garbage bag which he lifted up had been over the skull ~ the skull was on the ground, and he poked it to get a clearer look. I believe that the skull was partially embedded in the soil, where it had lain for months. The plant growth which had penetrated the bones may have kept the skull where it was found. The duct tape may have been entertwined with the hair as there was nothing left of the face. Oh, heaven help me...this is so difficult to imagine and too horrific to keep going round and round about that damn tape. Hair is like thread, and probably just enough of it had swirled around the fibers of the tape to keep it there. Three strips of duct tape, covering the face of Caylee Marie, covering her tiny nose and mouth and when those body parts decomposed or whatever, that duct tape refused to let go. The duct tape, which the DT tried every which way to discredit, attacking every bit of expert testimony with inexpert witnesses with questionable qualifications. Remember that old doc, way past his prime, unconvincingly trying to explain that he thought somebody took the skull and taped the mandible in place. Short of Caylee Marie flying down from heaven to testify in the courtroom that "mommy did it", I think there is sufficient evidence to point that out.

Aedrys
08-05-2011, 09:26 PM
Drowning is one theory of cause of death given the medical examiner could not find one. There are many possible causes of death, both deliberate and accidental. We simply don't know and most likely never will. I try not to make absolutely judgements of what all people do or don't do because where people are concerned, nothing much is absolute and many things beyond what you think are possible.

And why was the Medical Examiner unable to identify a cause of death? Because Casey lied about what happened to Caylee and where she was. Caylee lay in that swamp long enough to become skeletal. Casey lied and covered up what happened. Why would she do that if were an accident? The queen of me, me, me turned down an opportunity to milk being a grieving mother of a drowned child for all it's worth? I can't believe the jury ignored the selfishness of Casey. The videos of her screaming at her parents and treating them like crap. The jail phone call where all she wanted was Tony's number and got upset that all anyone else wanted was Caylee back. The fact that she threw her family under the bus to save herself. I've never seen anyone completely destroy their family like this. Most have family quietly sitting in the gallery and supporting them, and don't blame the family like Casey did for what happened. Why would Caylee have been worth more to Casey or be treated any differently than Casey treated her own family? We are supposed to believe friends who barely knew Casey as a mother that she was a good mom? How is she a good mom with no job, no money, stealing from friends, and worst of all, killing her own child? Or if her child did drown, not caring AT ALL about said child after death? No good mother treats their dead child that way. No good mother just forgets their beloved child and just moves on like that child never existed. I can't believe that Casey's behavior in court, all the fake tears and thinking pose nonsense, getting upset when she wasn't supposed to be and not getting upset when she should be, along with the videos, jail phone calls, and attitude after Caylee's death would lead someone to believe that she gave one iota of carp about Caylee and simply covered up a drowning. No normal person does what Casey does, and she doesn't get a pass for not being normal and her family not being normal. There has to be a standard. We can't let people off because they're not normal and somehow that's okay. That's NOT okay, and the jury completely failed in that aspect among many in this trial in their decision to acquit her.

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 09:33 PM
Even though the defendant did not, has not and will not explain the "accident"..? Why do you think she is not talking? IMO there is no innocent way to explain the was Caylee was found. What really happened is way worse then having the world convinced the she is responsible for her child's death but only speculate how it happened.

Dead baby hidden in swamp with duct tape equals murder IMO

Nothing about Casey much comes under the wide umbrella of the varying lengths of normal. People seem to expect her to act or react as they would or as they see people in their day to day lives act and react. Not "everyone" acts or reacts as you would think. It doesn't automatically mean they are guilty of something.

LCoastMom
08-05-2011, 09:37 PM
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Because there is no way the mother of that child put that tape on Caylees face. Ya right.

Unbelievable to me is the people who still choose to believe this. The River De-nial runs deep.

No one in their right mind would duct tape a child who died from an accident. CFCA may not be "right" in the head but she was found to be sane and her actions certainly speak to her own guilt (lies, parties, lies, sex, lies, tattoo, did I mention lies?).

The three individual pieces of tape found adhered to Caylee's hair did not get there on it's own, Caylee didn't duct tape herself, the tape did not randomly float there and just happen to keep the mandible in place and no one came along 6 months later, found these things scattered in the swamp and decided to stage a crime scene.

Neither GA or CA would have a reason to cover an accidental death, LA wasn't around on 6/16 (Kronk wasn't either). The "nanny" doesn't exist. CFCA's friends were investigated and cleared by LE. By process of elimination, that leaves CFCA. Maybe 'mom' was right, maybe CFCA is a terrible mother or maybe she's just a spiteful beotch.

300+ pieces of evidence say that CFCA killed precious Caylee, wrapped her face in duct tape (during or immediately after the murder), triple bagged her and dumped her in the trashy lot at the end of the block. Too bad the Pinella's 12 had more important things to do than take their job seriously and come up with a just verdict or to even TRY! I'll never understand what they did (or more importantly didn't do) during deliberations, talk about a huge waste!

pcrum12
08-05-2011, 09:39 PM
Have you looked at the autopsy report done by Dr G. ?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

Of course I have read and researched the autopsy. No where in that autopsy can I find that it states that the tape was on both side. If I have missed this please do point me to what I have missed.

coco puff
08-05-2011, 09:49 PM
Nothing about Casey much comes under the wide umbrella of the varying lengths of normal. People seem to expect her to act or react as they would or as they see people in their day to day lives act and react. Not "everyone" acts or reacts as you would think. It doesn't automatically mean they are guilty of something.

If her child is found dead in a swamp stuffed in bags with duct tape where her face used to be and she lied about it to police and family about the childs wherabouts . . .IMO pretty automatic in my mind.

LCoastMom
08-05-2011, 09:52 PM
Nothing about Casey much comes under the wide umbrella of the varying lengths of normal. People seem to expect her to act or react as they would or as they see people in their day to day lives act and react. Not "everyone" acts or reacts as you would think. It doesn't automatically mean they are guilty of something.

You are absolutely correct but in this case it sure doesn't mean she was not guilty of anything having to do with her daughter's death.

pcrum12
08-05-2011, 09:53 PM
It is my understanding that RK clarified his first statement regarding the skull. He said that the garbage bag which he lifted up had been over the skull ~ the skull was on the ground, and he poked it to get a clearer look. I believe that the skull was partially embedded in the soil, where it had lain for months. The plant growth which had penetrated the bones may have kept the skull where it was found. The duct tape may have been entertwined with the hair as there was nothing left of the face. Oh, heaven help me...this is so difficult to imagine and too horrific to keep going round and round about that damn tape. Hair is like thread, and probably just enough of it had swirled around the fibers of the tape to keep it there. Three strips of duct tape, covering the face of Caylee Marie, covering her tiny nose and mouth and when those body parts decomposed or whatever, that duct tape refused to let go. The duct tape, which the DT tried every which way to discredit, attacking every bit of expert testimony with inexpert witnesses with questionable qualifications. Remember that old doc, way past his prime, unconvincingly trying to explain that he thought somebody took the skull and taped the mandible in place. Short of Caylee Marie flying down from heaven to testify in the courtroom that "mommy did it", I think there is sufficient evidence to point that out.

BBM: Which of the many statements are you referring to?

ExpectingUnicorns
08-05-2011, 10:23 PM
I do not find anywhere in any doc or trial testimony that the tape was stuck to BOTH sides in the hair. Can you link?

May I ask why this detail would matter? And if it does matter, the converse of your request for a link equally applies; can you supply a link?

lauriej
08-05-2011, 10:27 PM
Drowning is one theory of cause of death given the medical examiner could not find one. There are many possible causes of death, both deliberate and accidental. We simply don't know and most likely never will. I try not to make absolutely judgements of what all people do or don't do because where people are concerned, nothing much is absolute and many things beyond what you think are possible.

..the M.E. couldn't list the exact cause of death-------b/c of what she was "left to work with" by the time the remains had been found-----after the tissues/organs were long gone ( suffocation? drugs?? drowning?? etc.--so much for those tests!) animals had gnawed on the bones and scattered them around...

..fortunately, the duct tape was a poly/cotten blend, even though the cotten had deteriorated, and the tape was in less than stellar condition ( chewed up )-----the poly stood up to the weather/swamp conditions......still sticking to the hair, still evident that IT was what kept the mandible ( that should have fallen OFF/AWAY from the skull once the tissue was no longer there to keep it in place)..

..now why on earth would the body of a small child be in garbage bags in a swamp ----with 3 strips of heavy duty duct tape on the face and stuck to the child's hair ???

..dr.G. explained in great detail @ trial ALL of the factors an M.E. uses in determining c.o.d. etc.--------arriving at her conclusion:

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf
--AUTOPSY report-----PAGE 1-----

C.O.D. homicide by undetermined means.

..an accidental drowning----is not a homicide.

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 10:36 PM
Of course I have read and researched the autopsy. No where in that autopsy can I find that it states that the tape was on both side. If I have missed this please do point me to what I have missed.

Text sucks to relay tone sometimes :) Sorry. I was offering the autopsy report as a possibility not a definite.

I even listened to Jeff Ashton questioning the (dont recall his name) older gentleman who did the DT autopsy and from what I gathered the UNpixelated photos show it. Of course we don't have access to those to see for ourselves.

My view is even if it shows it there, on both sides, suggesting possibly a murder, nothing proves Casey did it.

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 10:41 PM
You are absolutely correct but in this case it sure doesn't mean she was not guilty of anything having to do with her daughter's death.

True. However Casey's right at her trial, as given to her by our legal system is that she is to be cloaked in innocence.

I highly doubt many people did that. She was hung drawn and quartered by the media and everyone else from day 1.

ExpectingUnicorns
08-05-2011, 10:45 PM
I don't pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth to support my theories. I prefer to look at the evidence. For me, there was not enough to believe Caylee was murdered, much less by Casey or that Casey disposed of her body.

One must "pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth" because she gave so many conflicting stories. Clearly, the evidence supported none of them. Or did I miss her explanation of the application of the duct tape?

kelian36
08-05-2011, 10:46 PM
I don't pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth to support my theories. I prefer to look at the evidence. For me, there was not enough to believe Caylee was murdered, much less by Casey or that Casey disposed of her body.

bbm-look at the evidence or ignore the evidence?

Baffles me that anyone using common sense--that knows a 2 year old child was found dead, found behind her residence, found with duct tape wrapped around her head 3 times, found stuffed into 3 trash bags and found in a hamper liner from her home, would say CAYLEE WAS NOT MURDERED? REALLY ?!?!?!?

NotRocketSighence
08-05-2011, 10:48 PM
..the M.E. couldn't list the exact cause of death-------b/c of what she was "left to work with" by the time the remains had been found-----after the tissues/organs were long gone ( suffocation? drugs?? drowning?? etc.--so much for those tests!) animals had gnawed on the bones and scattered them around...

..fortunately, the duct tape was a poly/cotten blend, even though the cotten had deteriorated, and the tape was in less than stellar condition ( chewed up )-----the poly stood up to the weather/swamp conditions......still sticking to the hair, still evident that IT was what kept the mandible ( that should have fallen OFF/AWAY from the skull once the tissue was no longer there to keep it in place)..

..now why on earth would the body of a small child be in garbage bags in a swamp ----with 3 strips of heavy duty duct tape on the face and stuck to the child's hair ???

..dr.G. explained in great detail @ trial ALL of the factors an M.E. uses in determining c.o.d. etc.--------arriving at her conclusion:

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19802034.pdf
--AUTOPSY report-----PAGE 1-----

C.O.D. homicide by undetermined means.

..an accidental drowning----is not a homicide.

Thank you, yes, I watched the trial too. I watched Dr G's testimony. I didn't agree with a couple of her opinion assertions and I found her emotional. Its a highly charged emotional case. Very understandably so. However emotion clouds facts. I am taking all the emotion out of forming my own personal opinions.

I don't make the leap a lot of people do that she was murdered simply because of how and where she was found. Even if she was murdered, I don't find anything making me leap immediately to Casey.

We simply don't know and most likely never will.

kelian36
08-05-2011, 10:51 PM
No, most of the posters spent 3 years analyzing discovery and came to a GUILTY verdict without any help from the media at all!! Not all thought she was guilty of Murder 1 but thought she should have been convicted of Manslaughter, Child Neglect or Child Abuse that resulted in death.

Personally I believe that cutting four pieces of duct tape screams premeditation and wrapping three pieces of duct tape across a toddlers face (into her hair) is murder.


:gthanks:

kelian36
08-05-2011, 10:52 PM
Thank you, yes, I watched the trial too. I watched Dr G's testimony. I didn't agree with a couple of her opinion assertions and I found her emotional. Its a highly charged emotional case. Very understandably so. However emotion clouds facts. I am taking all the emotion out of forming my own personal opinions.

I don't make the leap a lot of people do that she was murdered simply because of how and where she was found. Even if she was murdered, I don't find anything making me leap immediately to Casey.

We simply don't know and most likely never will.

Emotion clouds facts....


the jurors IGNORED facts.
What a shame......an (imo) murderer walked,

KALI
08-05-2011, 11:03 PM
I do not Post Much. I also do not want to get into any verbal arguements.

Here's my take, on this trial.

Simply. It makes me want to throw up. Completely and Totally.

It is my belief, for evermore, that Casey Anthony killed her daughter Caylee.

I do not need to wonder what sickness would make a Mother kill her child-It happens daily.

I am a pretty nice and forgiving person. BUT. When Casey Killed Caylee-I'm over the top.

OH-Not to be FORGOTTEN-Cindy Anthony-The best Damn Mother and Grandmother in the world. I'm going to throw up again.

I'm sorry Caylee.

TexasLori
08-05-2011, 11:09 PM
Obviously, the media didn't have any bearing on this trial because the media, according to those who blame it, was hugely biased toward Casey being guilty. This jury found her not guilty, so how can anyone say the media played a part in prematurely convicting her?

Given what was put forth at trial, and I'm talking about facts not "what ifs" presented by the defense that had no evidence to back it, there was no other reasonable explanation for what happened to Caylee, other than she was killed by Casey.

You could say that Caylee drowned in the pool on the 16th with George and Casey present, that no one called 911, that George (or someone else) put Caylee in the back of Casey's car, and that Casey drove her car around with the smell for several days. You could say that then Casey abandoned the car, George (or someone else) removed Caylee's body from the car, then disposed of it, and that though Casey knew nothing beyond her drowning in the pool, she lied many times to LE. You could say all that happened, but is it really reasonable to believe that? It would be just as reasonable to say aliens stole Caylee's body.

I have asked this question a few times in the forums, and no one has given me a response yet. If you believe the verdict is correct, what reasonable explanation do you offer that fits with the evidence presented at trial?

kelian36
08-05-2011, 11:16 PM
I do not Post Much. I also do not want to get into any verbal arguements.

Here's my take, on this trial.

Simply. It makes me want to throw up. Completely and Totally.

It is my belief, for evermore, that Casey Anthony killed her daughter Caylee.

I do not need to wonder what sickness would make a Mother kill her child-It happens daily.

I am a pretty nice and forgiving person. BUT. When Casey Killed Caylee-I'm over the top.

OH-Not to be FORGOTTEN-Cindy Anthony-The best Damn Mother and Grandmother in the world. I'm going to throw up again.

I'm sorry Caylee.

:seeya:
KALI,
I keep thinking the same thing-- I'm sorry Caylee.
I'm sorry her mom walked.
I'm sorry the jury didn't do what I consider a good job.
I'm sorry Caylee will never get justice. :(

kelian36
08-05-2011, 11:21 PM
Obviously, the media didn't have any bearing on this trial because the media, according to those who blame it, was hugely biased toward Casey being guilty. This jury found her not guilty, so how can anyone say the media played a part in prematurely convicting her?

Given what was put forth at trial, and I'm talking about facts not "what ifs" presented by the defense that had no evidence to back it, there was no other reasonable explanation for what happened to Caylee, other than she was killed by Casey.

You could say that Caylee drowned in the pool on the 16th with George and Casey present, that no one called 911, that George (or someone else) put Caylee in the back of Casey's car, and that Casey drove her car around with the smell for several days. You could say that then Casey abandoned the car, George (or someone else) removed Caylee's body from the car, then disposed of it, and that though Casey knew nothing beyond her drowning in the pool, she lied many times to LE. You could say all that happened, but is it really reasonable to believe that? It would be just as reasonable to say aliens stole Caylee's body.

I have asked this question a few times in the forums, and no one has given me a response yet. If you believe the verdict is correct, what reasonable explanation do you offer that fits with the evidence presented at trial?
Beautifully put TexasLori. :cheer:

Sustained
08-05-2011, 11:41 PM
We don't know she was killed, we don't know who did what.

I have a hard time believing that this duct tape was placed over her face yet it survived everything it did, the hurricane, the water, the bones being gnawed on by animals, the bones being scattered around, the duct tape supposedly not being attached to anything but the hair, ie no facial tissue (it was decomposed), Roy Kronk supposedly poking the skull with a stick and lifting it into the air or whatever physical poking around he did and yet we are to believe the skull, the tape, the hair all stayed perfectly in place enough to deduct it was the cause of death. That's too many leaps for me to conclusively make on that evidence alone.

I can theorize a reason or two why an accident is made to look like a crime. I can make enough possible leaps to make things that give me pause and reasonable doubt to not believe absolutely it was Casey.

I simply don't know. None of us do. I just don't jump to the automatic guilty conclusion others do based on what I saw in the trail.

Theories are composed of speculation and speculation leads to speculative doubt, not reasonable doubt. I could speculate as to how Laci Peterson ended up in S.F. Bay ... maybe she went swimming, drowned, washed out to sea, and then washed back to shore with the tides. But when I put all of the circumstantial evidence together against Scott Petersen, my speculation about Laci dying from an accidental drowning becomes just that ... speculation and I, as a juror, would have discarded it as unreasonable doubt.

ExpectingUnicorns
08-05-2011, 11:50 PM
True. However Casey's right at her trial, as given to her by our legal system is that she is to be cloaked in innocence.

I highly doubt many people did that. She was hung drawn and quartered by the media and everyone else from day 1.

I disagree. I wanted her to be innocent. Even though it was day 31, not "day1." It was the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing, that came into discovery for almost 3 years later supported any facts that Casey had given as explanation of her daughter's death. Not one single thing. No matter how many times she changed her story. The root cause of lying is self preservation.

I am still in shock that 12 people gathered together and cared so little that they didn't apply themselves to the weighty task set before them. If they saw conflicting facts and evidence it was their duty to ferret out the truth. To this very day, the explanations of those who have chosen to speak for them, have only confirmed that they were working from a distorted premise of the definition of reasonable doubt, the requirements of a guilty verdict and even an improper review of lesser charges.

Casey's jury had her "cloaked in innocence" so totally that they, too, kept themselves cloaked from the good, solid circumstantial evidence. One juror even said she dismissed it all because it was only circumstantial. Logic flew out the window.

All future offenders should be celebrating. It appears that if one sits dumb and mute then a well selected defense jury, lacking a video of the crime, will let that offender go free. After all, everything else is just circumstantial.

It hurts my heart that this comedy of errors may set a new standard that could jeopardize the safety of our children. That is the heart of the matter; not if the tape was only on one side of Caylee's face or not, nor if Casey's reactions were normal or not.

Caylee died. Her mother has given no satisfactory reason that holds up to even the most casual scrutiny. The murderess is identified by her consciousness of guilt. God help the innocent children.

LCoastMom
08-05-2011, 11:53 PM
Obviously, the media didn't have any bearing on this trial because the media, according to those who blame it, was hugely biased toward Casey being guilty. This jury found her not guilty, so how can anyone say the media played a part in prematurely convicting her?

Given what was put forth at trial, and I'm talking about facts not "what ifs" presented by the defense that had no evidence to back it, there was no other reasonable explanation for what happened to Caylee, other than she was killed by Casey.

You could say that Caylee drowned in the pool on the 16th with George and Casey present, that no one called 911, that George (or someone else) put Caylee in the back of Casey's car, and that Casey drove her car around with the smell for several days. You could say that then Casey abandoned the car, George (or someone else) removed Caylee's body from the car, then disposed of it, and that though Casey knew nothing beyond her drowning in the pool, she lied many times to LE. You could say all that happened, but is it really reasonable to believe that? It would be just as reasonable to say aliens stole Caylee's body.

I have asked this question a few times in the forums, and no one has given me a response yet. If you believe the verdict is correct, what reasonable explanation do you offer that fits with the evidence presented at trial?

Thank you!

Re BBM - I have asked this question a couple times since the verdict and no one has answered it. Many who agree with the verdict claim we want to convict based on emotion, regardless of the amount of time spent analyzing EVERYTHING.

While I agree this is a highly emotional case (as are all children's deaths), IMO LE did a tremendous job, especially considering they were 31 days behind at the time of the 911 call and the lack of cooperation from the victim's own family. LE had a lot to overcome, yet they managed to connect the dots and found no one else with means, motive and opportunity.

Since none of us (to my knowledge) knew CFCA, GA, CA, LA or their cohorts prior to Day 31, what exactly would we have to gain by wanting to find any of them guilty of this heinous crime, if the evidence pointed elsewhere? That IMO makes no sense.

NotRocketSighence
08-06-2011, 12:08 AM
I disagree. I wanted her to be innocent. Even though it was day 31, not "day1."

"Since day 1" is a common saying. Nothing to do with the fact this case was based 31 days.

ExpectingUnicorns
08-06-2011, 12:17 AM
"Since day 1" is a common saying. Nothing to do with the fact this case was based 31 days.

I do know that.

mimmy03
08-06-2011, 12:38 AM
ARe you kidding me? It is so evident that most posters on this forum bought into the mdeia hype that Convicted before trial ever started. JMO

Right before the trial started I wasn't 100% convinced either way. But after looking at all the evidence (didn't watch the news much about it b/c the talking heads annoy me) I came to the conclusion that she was guilty. Because any other scenario makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Exactly how Caylee died is unknown, but there is no doubt in my mind KC is responsible for Caylee's death. At the very least the jury should have found her guilty of manslaughter.

Baznme
08-06-2011, 12:39 AM
So, in Caseyspeak, 31st day = Day 1. Day 1 is the day a lot of websleuthers started picking this apart to see what was at the bottom.

Baznme
08-06-2011, 12:49 AM
Thank you, yes, I watched the trial too. I watched Dr G's testimony. I didn't agree with a couple of her opinion assertions and I found her emotional. Its a highly charged emotional case. Very understandably so. However emotion clouds facts. I am taking all the emotion out of forming my own personal opinions.

I don't make the leap a lot of people do that she was murdered simply because of how and where she was found. Even if she was murdered, I don't find anything making me leap immediately to Casey.

We simply don't know and most likely never will.

Emotion didn't apply all that duct tape to Caylee's skull. If you don't believe she was murdered by KC or whoever, why would that tape be there?

Dr. G got emotional because the DT was trying to make a fool out of her and she got mad. I don't blame her. She finally came back with the statement "no child should have duct tape on their face". She determined it was a "homicide" because of it so how can you dispute that? What is your level of expertise that gives you the idea that her determination is questionnable?

No, scratch that........it doesn't even matter. What reason would Caylee have had that duct tape on her face or anywhere on her skull?

kelian36
08-06-2011, 12:56 AM
Theories are composed of speculation and speculation leads to speculative doubt, not reasonable doubt. I could speculate as to how Laci Peterson ended up in S.F. Bay ... maybe she went swimming, drowned, washed out to sea, and then washed back to shore with the tides. But when I put all of the circumstantial evidence together against Scott Petersen, my speculation about Laci dying from an accidental drowning becomes just that ... speculation and I, as a juror, would have discarded it as unreasonable doubt.

:applause:

Baznme
08-06-2011, 01:01 AM
ARe you kidding me? It is so evident that most posters on this forum bought into the mdeia hype that Convicted before trial ever started. JMO

Do you not realize that a lot of the media come here to find out what is truth, theory and/or fantasy? There's a lot of information right here in these archives that some of the media knows nothing about and there are archived posts of some of the key characters in the background of this case.

There are awesome sleuthers here that know how to find reliable sources to back up what is found and the information is scrutinized by all. You can't just post a link to anything you find on the net and expect it to be an acceptable resource. I don't need to tell you that if you've been around here long enough, so your statement that "most posters on this forum bought into the media hype that convicted before trial" ever started is completely unfair and false. It's actually an insult.

Baznme
08-06-2011, 01:05 AM
One must "pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth" because she gave so many conflicting stories. Clearly, the evidence supported none of them. Or did I miss her explanation of the application of the duct tape?

No, you missed her explanation of anything! .........LOL..........it never ends.

cuppy199
08-06-2011, 03:20 AM
ARe you kidding me? It is so evident that most posters on this forum bought into the mdeia hype that Convicted before trial ever started. JMO
This forum has the most intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure to meet that care deeply about each and every case.Members here spend hour on hour doing our own searching investigating to help not only this case but many others. To even apply that most members here only listen to the media hype is just plain nonsense and totally untrue.The evidence is what formed my opinion. I dont need the media or anyone else I have my own eyes and I can use my brain.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 04:03 AM
You are assuming she did. I don't assume that. There was no evidence presented that absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt proved Casey did either.
I'm assuming it would explain or rather be part and parcel of what you stated in your post. Mothers who fail to bond may not show remorse when their child dies. Mothers who fail to bond might find it easy to go about their business as if their child never existed. Casey may not have attached to her daughter which could explain a lot of her behavior.
Sorry...I feel like I've had a light bulb moment. Thanks.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 04:10 AM
We don't know she was killed, we don't know who did what.

I have a hard time believing that this duct tape was placed over her face yet it survived everything it did, the hurricane, the water, the bones being gnawed on by animals, the bones being scattered around, the duct tape supposedly not being attached to anything but the hair, ie no facial tissue (it was decomposed), Roy Kronk supposedly poking the skull with a stick and lifting it into the air or whatever physical poking around he did and yet we are to believe the skull, the tape, the hair all stayed perfectly in place enough to deduct it was the cause of death. That's too many leaps for me to conclusively make on that evidence alone.

I can theorize a reason or two why an accident is made to look like a crime. I can make enough possible leaps to make things that give me pause and reasonable doubt to not believe absolutely it was Casey.

I simply don't know. None of us do. I just don't jump to the automatic guilty conclusion others do based on what I saw in the trail.
Then you might find it helpful to go back through all of the doc dumps. It's been a helluva ride these past 3 years.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 04:20 AM
Of course I have read and researched the autopsy. No where in that autopsy can I find that it states that the tape was on both side. If I have missed this please do point me to what I have missed.
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/anthony,%20caylee_report.pdf

Still attached to the hair...doesn't say partially attached. If anyone wants to believe it wasn't fully attached that is their prerogative...they can believe what they want to believe. Personally I don't think it furthers discussion...but we all have our way of looking at things. Obviously, the jurors did.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 04:26 AM
Drowning is one theory of cause of death given the medical examiner could not find one. There are many possible causes of death, both deliberate and accidental. We simply don't know and most likely never will. I try not to make absolutely judgements of what all people do or don't do because where people are concerned, nothing much is absolute and many things beyond what you think are possible.
To me...there is no reasonable explanation why anyone would toss their child in a dump. And no, there was nothing that connected RK...and there was nothing that connected GA...IMO. Casey was the one who didn't want her daughter found.

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 04:37 AM
I see you didn't answer the question. That's cool. Cheers.

LOL, I sure didn't. Here's your original question:

So, are you suggesting here that if the jury had doubts about the validity of the evidence (which it seems they very much did have) then they should have just gone ahead with a guilty verdict anyway despite those doubts? That seems to go against what a jury is expected to do, IMO.


That question is a sucker punch, and I tried for a few moments then gave up trying to answer it politely. If it seemed relevant to ask me this question, then you misunderstand my post.

By the time the jury decided they doubted the validity of the evidence, the game was over. How ridiculous to vote guilty anyway. So my answer is no, of course not, how silly would that be?

That they were unable to tolerate their doubts and thoroughly examine the evidence in it's entirety is where they screwed up, not in voting "guilty" when they weren't convinced :crazy: .

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 05:54 AM
"With all due respect, that is what the pro-verdict folks on this board appear to have wrong with their conclusions as well. This isn't a matter of inferior intellect, just inferior reasoning, and that is definitely my opinion."

With all due respect, is this saying that because I am pro-verdict, that my reasoning is inferior?

Yes.

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, therefore, any anti-verdict reasoning is superior to mine?

I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, therefore of lower degree or rank, than anti-verdict reasoning which would be superior and higher up?

Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, therefore of poor quality or mediocre as opposed to anti-verdict reasoning being high quality and above average?

Sound reasoning is expected.

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, thus making my reasoning of less importance, value or merit, as opposed to anti-verdict reasoning being superior and of greater importance, value or merit?
If this is definately your opinion, I will respect your opinion, and rather than letting myself feel terribly insulted, I will just strongly disagree with your opinion, and leave it at that.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

annalia
08-06-2011, 11:09 AM
Everything in the docs were facts, Casey's lies were facts, Casey not bothering to report her child missing was a fact, Casey sending police on wild goose chases were facts, everything put out about Casey were facts. The "totality" of the evidence, even circumstantial, pointed to no one but Casey.

The only "hype" were all of the fantasies put out by the DT and pushed by others about sexual abuse and GA being complicit. "Feelings" that GA looked like a pedo, "feelings" that GA looked like he was flirting with Casey, "feelings" that GA committed sexual abuse because he "looked" a certain way, "feelings" that poor CA was suffering from all sorts of different ailments excusing all of her behavior and rendering her not responsible for anything.

That is what was all hype with attempts to try to turn it into fact. NO evidence whatsoever for either sexual abuse or GA's involvement in what happened to Caylee.

For people who have experienced real sexual abuse, myself included, it's outrageous that a liar like CA would use it as a get out of jail free card.

The jurors took the easy way out, they wanted out of there, they couldn't get past the OS, they disregarded what they didn't understand. It's much easier to believe sordid fantasies about perverted old men and sexual abuse than believing a mother would do that to her child, especially watching poor Casey sitting way down low in her chair, being fondled by her DT, stroked, petted, crying on cue.

JMHO

ExpectingUnicorns
08-06-2011, 11:28 AM
Yes.



I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:



Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.



Sound reasoning is expected.



It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

:clap: Excellent! Solipsism? I had to look it up. It was perfect! :tyou:

thedeviledadvocate
08-06-2011, 12:44 PM
Yes.



I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:



Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.



Sound reasoning is expected.



It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

TexasLori
08-06-2011, 01:01 PM
But the fact that it could be something other than an apple doesn't meant it is reasonable to conclude that it was.

For those that say more evidence was needed to conclude BARD, I say perhaps you do not understand the meaning of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean 100% convinced.

The only thing that would change the minds of the pro verdict people would be a video of Casey committing the crime.

Drama Queen
08-06-2011, 01:04 PM
We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I know a woman who has "crab" apples. She is not happy. Her apples may multiply and become a huge scourge on our earth. Most guys are not at all happy with her either. They are concerned that the "crab" in the apples may cause them to lose many things such as a Job,,,,wife,,,,children...etc. But...they understand that the effect of growing "crab" apples may mean a significant consequence to living on our earth. Therefore they are using a pesticide and and are no longer fertilizing the planet with bad chit!
Doesn't matter the apple...if it is bad...you dang right it is bad!
And place one in the adisphere....it explodes to hades and back. FCA is a crab apple on our society and must not be allowed to infest the Granny Apple (ewww,) Macintosh (ireland would not be happy!) and the yummy Delicious (as in little child who should not be murdered!)
MOO
:great:

MissJames
08-06-2011, 01:11 PM
FWIW,I don't think all 12 jurors believed there was reasonable doubt,but I do believe they were coerced to change there votes with a faulty argument by the foreman,with the help of JF. JMO
I'm still hoping we hear the true story of what happened in that jury room.#2 came close,so perhaps he will come back and report exactly what was said to turn 6 guilty votes into NG . It sure wasn't by following the jury instructions and it wasn't by looking over the evidence or revisiting testimony.

logicalgirl
08-06-2011, 01:13 PM
Well, I'm thinking CA and GA can't possibly be supporting the NG verdict or else their big attempts with their Caylees foundation isn't going to fly at all.

And accidental death and a pedophile in the family does not support the principle's of their foundation at all.

Going to be very interesting next week when their canned hype hits the airwaves to see how they are going to 'splain themselves.

"Ah yes.....our CMA is innocent, and this was just an accident so we support her to the fullest, but we never want another family to go through what we did with a missing child even though Caylee was never missing, she drowned, but we thought she was missing and oh wait a minute George found her and apparently abused CMA since she was eight but never mind that ....our foundation supports"......:crazy:

imagirlgeek
08-06-2011, 01:31 PM
We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I totally see what you are saying, and it was an excellent way to break it down. BUT....(you knew a 'but' was coming, right) ;)

If you couple this with Dr. V's expert testimony about the analysis of the carpet samples that determined it was a 'food apple', and all the people who stated that they smelled a decomposing 'food apple' and not an Apple Ipod, I have to believe that it was a decomposing 'food apple'.

My point is that I can easily create doubt if I separate all the evidence in this case into it's own stand-alone item. I admit that. But when I put the evidence together, I just can't. MOO

thedeviledadvocate - I am very much enjoying your posts, despite us being on opposite sides of the fence. :seeya:

TexasLori
08-06-2011, 01:41 PM
I totally see what you are saying, and it was an excellent way to break it down. BUT....(you knew a 'but' was coming, right) ;)

If you couple this with Dr. V's expert testimony about the analysis of the carpet samples that determined it was a 'food apple', and all the people who stated that they smelled a decomposing 'food apple' and not an Apple Ipod, I have to believe that it was a decomposing 'food apple'.

My point is that I can easily create doubt if I separate all the evidence in this case into it's own stand-alone item. I admit that. But when I put the evidence together, I just can't. MOO

thedeviledadvocate - I am very much enjoying your posts, despite us being on opposite sides of the fence. :seeya:

I think this may be the problem. I think people are looking at one piece of evidence at a time. Which is fine, but then you have to back up and look at the whole picture. I could probably find reasonable doubt with any one piece, but that is not how the justice system works. You have to look at the whole, and unfortunately when you start listing RD next to each piece and you look at it all, it adds up to a great big mess of "what ifs" that don't even come close to resembling reasonable doubt.

NavySubMom
08-06-2011, 01:41 PM
Do you not realize that a lot of the media come here to find out what is truth, theory and/or fantasy? There's a lot of information right here in these archives that some of the media knows nothing about and there are archived posts of some of the key characters in the background of this case.

There are awesome sleuthers here that know how to find reliable sources to back up what is found and the information is scrutinized by all. You can't just post a link to anything you find on the net and expect it to be an acceptable resource. I don't need to tell you that if you've been around here long enough, so your statement that "most posters on this forum bought into the media hype that convicted before trial" ever started is completely unfair and false. It's actually an insult.

I agree with you totally. I lurked here since pretty much "Day 31", having lurked here for other things prior, and only joined last year. however, the info on this site and reading the threads was public, so I read here, and there is so much actual evidence and detail and scrutiny from people on both sides of the aisle here, it is overwhelming. With the FLA sunshine laws, we were able to see all of the evidentiary doc dumps, and most of the actual evidence over the years, along with much more. To go back in the archives of this case is an incredible thing to do, one thing I remember that was not brought into the trial of course is the diagramming of the stain on the trunk of the car to show the actual "layout" of how this could be of a young child. So much time went into scrutinizing the cell phone pings, the phone records, all of the pre-trial hearings, etc., photos, I cannot even begin to detail the amount of actual EVIDENCE that is on this site. I am not saying all of the info on this site was brought into the trial or that all the info on this site is the God's Truth, but to indicate the majority people on this website bought into the "media hype" is so wrong, I agree it is a complete insult. IMO, MOO, etc.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 01:42 PM
This forum has the most intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure to meet that care deeply about each and every case.Members here spend hour on hour doing our own searching investigating to help not only this case but many others. To even apply that most members here only listen to the media hype is just plain nonsense and totally untrue.The evidence is what formed my opinion. I dont need the media or anyone else I have my own eyes and I can use my brain.

Amen Cuppy. :toastred:

kelian36
08-06-2011, 01:45 PM
LOL, I sure didn't. Here's your original question:



That question is a sucker punch, and I tried for a few moments then gave up trying to answer it politely. If it seemed relevant to ask me this question, then you misunderstand my post.

By the time the jury decided they doubted the validity of the evidence, the game was over. How ridiculous to vote guilty anyway. So my answer is no, of course not, how silly would that be?

That they were unable to tolerate their doubts and thoroughly examine the evidence in it's entirety is where they screwed up, not in voting "guilty" when they weren't convinced :crazy: .

Truer words were never spoken.

thedeviledadvocate
08-06-2011, 01:48 PM
But the fact that it could be something other than an apple doesn't meant it is reasonable to conclude that it was.

For those that say more evidence was needed to conclude BARD, I say perhaps you do not understand the meaning of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean 100% convinced.

The only thing that would change the minds of the pro verdict people would be a video of Casey committing the crime.

I agree with the thought that just because it could be something other than an apple doesn't mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is.

However, when the burden of proof is on the state, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed an apple, then stating it has a core and a skin is not enough to prove it is an apple BARD, when there are so many other things that have a core and a skin. The state could have proven it was an apple with further testing to remove any doubt. They chose not to do the further testing. WHY? If this is indeed an apple, why not prove it? I believe they wanted everyone to think it was an apple, but had they done the further testing, it would have been found to be an apple phone, not an apple, and that is why the further tests weren't done. In addition, if it were an apple it helped their CIC, if it were to prove to be an apple phone it would have damaged their CIC, therefore, they did not want to risk confirmation, and chose to present it as an apple.

In the case of adipocere, this fatty substance found on the paper towells, that was consistant with adipocere, was found inside a white kitchen trash bag. I believe it is reasonable to want to find out definatively if this substance was adipocere, because the fatty acids that Dr. V mentioned are found in a number of items that are normally found in a kitchen. That is NOT inferior reasoning.

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

NavySubMom
08-06-2011, 01:54 PM
Everything in the docs were facts, Casey's lies were facts, Casey not bothering to report her child missing was a fact, Casey sending police on wild goose chases were facts, everything put out about Casey were facts. The "totality" of the evidence, even circumstantial, pointed to no one but Casey.

The only "hype" were all of the fantasies put out by the DT and pushed by others about sexual abuse and GA being complicit. "Feelings" that GA looked like a pedo, "feelings" that GA looked like he was flirting with Casey, "feelings" that GA committed sexual abuse because he "looked" a certain way, "feelings" that poor CA was suffering from all sorts of different ailments excusing all of her behavior and rendering her not responsible for anything.

That is what was all hype with attempts to try to turn it into fact. NO evidence whatsoever for either sexual abuse or GA's involvement in what happened to Caylee.

For people who have experienced real sexual abuse, myself included, it's outrageous that a liar like CA would use it as a get out of jail free card.

The jurors took the easy way out, they wanted out of there, they couldn't get past the OS, they disregarded what they didn't understand. It's much easier to believe sordid fantasies about perverted old men and sexual abuse than believing a mother would do that to her child, especially watching poor Casey sitting way down low in her chair, being fondled by her DT, stroked, petted, crying on cue.

JMHO

One of the jurors even stated that FCA 'seemed to be sincere', or something to that effect, (I will have to look to get the exact wording). Whatever could that possibly mean? to use that "feeling" about FCA to come to a verdict, as she never spoke one word at the trial other than watching her on the jailhouse videotapes with her parents, and listening to her 1st phonecall from jail when all she wanted was TL's phone #? when I hear what those jurors used as "evidence" during their deliberations (totaly speculation about Ga, RK, drowning, who Caylee was last seen with), totally ignoring the "facts" that were presented over 6 weeks, "I become so Frushtrated I can hardly Schwallow!"

kelian36
08-06-2011, 01:54 PM
There was plenty of evidence presented by the state. Good solid evidence. Reference all trial docs.

The evidence was ignored.

The jurors made up their minds before they deliberated. mo

They wanted to go home.

A baby killer (mo) walked.


Sad day/no justice.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 01:57 PM
One of the jurors even stated that FCA 'seemed to be sincere', or something to that effect, (I will have to look to get the exact wording). Whatever could that possibly mean? to use that "feeling" about FCA to come to a verdict, as she never spoke one word at the trial other than watching her on the jailhouse videotapes with her parents, and listening to her 1st phonecall from jail when all she wanted was TL's phone #? when I hear what those jurors used as "evidence" during their deliberations (totaly speculation about Ga, RK, drowning, who Caylee was last seen with), totally ignoring the "facts" that were presented over 6 weeks, "I become so Frushtrated I can hardly Schwallow!"

Excellent point NavySubMom.

NavySubMom
08-06-2011, 02:01 PM
Well, I'm thinking CA and GA can't possibly be supporting the NG verdict or else their big attempts with their Caylees foundation isn't going to fly at all.

And accidental death and a pedophile in the family does not support the principle's of their foundation at all.

Going to be very interesting next week when their canned hype hits the airwaves to see how they are going to 'splain themselves.

"Ah yes.....our CMA is innocent, and this was just an accident so we support her to the fullest, but we never want another family to go through what we did with a missing child even though Caylee was never missing, she drowned, but we thought she was missing and oh wait a minute George found her and apparently abused CMA since she was eight but never mind that ....our foundation supports"......:crazy:

You got that right! I can't wait to hear how they try to spin the NG verdict and its implications in view of their second foundation they are starting!! Hope it is as successful as their first one..... can't wait to hear what they say this foundation will exactly accomplish, other than to provide them salaries and tax shelters and administrative costs.... IMO, MOO, etc.

com n sense
08-06-2011, 02:11 PM
To me...there is no reasonable explanation why anyone would toss their child in a dump. And no, there was nothing that connected RK...and there was nothing that connected GA...IMO. Casey was the one who didn't want her daughter found.



No doubt in my mind she never wanted Caylee found & the reason is....... the duct tape!
She couldn't cry accident. She would have to lead them to the body & she KNEW she couldn't do that.

Aedrys
08-06-2011, 02:20 PM
I agree with the thought that just because it could be something other than an apple doesn't mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is.

However, when the burden of proof is on the state, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed an apple, then stating it has a core and a skin is not enough to prove it is an apple BARD, when there are so many other things that have a core and a skin. The state could have proven it was an apple with further testing to remove any doubt. They chose not to do the further testing. WHY? If this is indeed an apple, why not prove it? I believe they wanted everyone to think it was an apple, but had they done the further testing, it would have been found to be an apple phone, not an apple, and that is why the further tests weren't done. In addition, if it were an apple it helped their CIC, if it were to prove to be an apple phone it would have damaged their CIC, therefore, they did not want to risk confirmation, and chose to present it as an apple.

In the case of adipocere, this fatty substance found on the paper towells, that was consistant with adipocere, was found inside a white kitchen trash bag. I believe it is reasonable to want to find out definatively if this substance was adipocere, because the fatty acids that Dr. V mentioned are found in a number of items that are normally found in a kitchen. That is NOT inferior reasoning.

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Respectfully, do no suggest that state did anything underhanded here. They did not. There was no definitive test to to say with 100% accuracy that adipocere was on those towels. No test like that exists. All they can do is test for the components that make up adipocere, and even then those components can come from other sources as well. And even if there was such a test and the state didn't get the results they wanted, the state would not just throw it out and not use it. They could get into serious, mistrial proportions of trouble for denying the defense evidence that it wasn't adipocere. That did not happen. I think part of the problem is that people think are tests out there to prove absolutely EVERYTHING with 100% percent accuracy and that is false. Shoot, if that were possible, a lot more people would be in jail. Instead, tests are interpreted, and it's up to the jury to use their imagination and critical thinking to decide whose interpretation is better, which the jury did not do here.

Getting back to the hypothesis about the state, putting out false statements like this is not cool. Disagree with the verdict but don't accuse the state of doing bad things, even in a what if scenario, unless there is actual proof on such impropriety on their part. There's plenty of proof of all of things the defense did wrong. And if the state made a mistake, they quickly admitted to it and corrected it. I'm not saying the state is always perfect, but in this case, there was no impropriety on their part whatsoever. It's worthless to accuse them of it even in hypothesis.

And the state's burden, which has been repeated time and again, is not remove ALL doubt, just all REASONABLE doubt, which with some people has gone way too far into the category of unreasonable. What happened to using imagination and putting things together? Why must people have everything in row, a complete picture by the end of trial? This does not happen in most trials! And people still get convicted, without bodies, without solid evidence and only circumstantial evidence. It seems some people think no one should get convicted unless there's completely solid proof accompanied by a video of the perp doing the deed. Good Lord. That is not the burden of the state to have at every trial to get someone convicted.

Shoot, if looks like apple, smells like an apple, has the skin and core of an apple, then it's probably an apple. It is unreasonable to assume it's something else because imagination can't be used to put the evidence together and conclude it's an apple. The attitude of there wasn't enough so we'll never know is ludicrious. That's like saying we'll never know what puzzle is supposed to look like without every piece and the box top. A puzzle can still be put together with many missing pieces but the picture can still be figured out with critical thinking and imagination.

A lot of people just don't think critically anymore. If it's not layed out 100% in front of them so they don't have to do any mental work to figure it out, then why bother. There must be doubt because everything's not there to say she did it, so acquit. Ignore all of the evidence of her selfishness like the videos, jails calls, and destroying her own family in court to save her self; her lack of caring that her daughter is dead; her lies on top of lies on top of lies about her child being missing and kidnapped when that child is long dead; her being the only person with ANY motive to want Caylee gone; the dumpsite being down the street from Casey's home; the smell of death in the back of her car that she said she had sole possession of; and items from that house found in the bag in the swamp holding the duct taped face of a child who most certainly didn't die from drowning. I am so disappointed in that all of that somehow wasn't enough, and no proof of ANYTHING the defense said was brought forward, and the defense was completely inept on top of that, but somehow the defense was more believable than all of the circumstantial evidence that said otherwise. And the unreasonable thinking here is just astounding. Somehow being weird equates to it being okay to not call 911 if a child drowns. Weird people should have no responsiblity whatsover to anyone or anything because they are weird and don't understand. Because George acted weird on the stand, he must have done something. Because the state is not cow towing to the jury and the defense is, the defense is more likable and must be right. I could on and on with the complete unreasonableness and lack of critical thinking and imagination that is this verdict. I sincerely hope verdicts like Casey's aren't the future of our justice system, but from what I've seen of these twelve jurors and many on this board, I'm afraid it is.

All IMO.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 02:22 PM
No doubt in my mind she never wanted Caylee found & the reason is....... the duct tape!
She couldn't cry accident. She would have to lead them to the body & she KNEW she couldn't do that.

You are right --now tell me how the jurors came to a verdict without that consideration? Blows me away.

During this past month I've had a reoccurring thought>>>>> did the DT vote to allow the least smart folks as jurors? :maddening:

coco puff
08-06-2011, 02:26 PM
I think this may be the problem. I think people are looking at one piece of evidence at a time. Which is fine, but then you have to back up and look at the whole picture. I could probably find reasonable doubt with any one piece, but that is not how the justice system works. You have to look at the whole, and unfortunately when you start listing RD next to each piece and you look at it all, it adds up to a great big mess of "what ifs" that don't even come close to resembling reasonable doubt.

this is EXACTLY it.

Think back to your “logic and critical thinking” class in college. Now remember your statistics class. (yeah, sorry to bring that one up). You have to consider the odds of the whole scenario to determine a logical conclusion. The odds of something happening depend on the circumstances, so the odds of you getting hit by lighting are lets say, 1 in 1,000,000 but it changes if it is a sunny day AND you are indoors AND your house had lighting rods on it. See what I mean?

So what are the odds that:

Car smelled like a dead body according to a LE, nurse, tow truck driver, Drs working in the area of death, decay and decompostion
Dogs trained to hit on human decomp, alerted to her car
The sniffer machine detects compounds made up of human decomp in her car.
Waxy substance was found on paper towels in garbage bag found in trunk
FCA abandons car by smelly dumpster
FCA has an inability to grieve because of abuse
FCA has an inability to tell the truth because of abuse
FCA has a daughter that just happened to die in a terrible accident
Child found duct taped in swamp hidden inside of three bags as a result of a drowning
FCA faces death penalty but still won’t talk about the “accident” but can now grieve in front of jury
FCA goes to trial and the defenses stories change from swimming accident to “we will never know”

When you put this all together, logically and statistically, This could not have been an accident….. No Way!

thedeviledadvocate
08-06-2011, 03:20 PM
I totally see what you are saying, and it was an excellent way to break it down. BUT....(you knew a 'but' was coming, right) ;)

If you couple this with Dr. V's expert testimony about the analysis of the carpet samples that determined it was a 'food apple', and all the people who stated that they smelled a decomposing 'food apple' and not an Apple Ipod, I have to believe that it was a decomposing 'food apple'.

My point is that I can easily create doubt if I separate all the evidence in this case into it's own stand-alone item. I admit that. But when I put the evidence together, I just can't. MOO

thedeviledadvocate - I am very much enjoying your posts, despite us being on opposite sides of the fence. :seeya:

Thank you, and yes, I fully expected a but... and I will dwell a little further on the adipocere. I believe I am in fact linking possiblities together. I just do not accept it as fact, that for example, the stain in the trunk was caused by decompositional fluids, nor that the adipocere substance was factually adipocere. I did indeed take into consideration Dr. V's testimony, as well as Dr. F's. So when I link these things together, as you have done, I come up with the following.

Let me start with the odor in the trunk. First off, there was a white trash bag in the trunk that came from a kitchen. There was a foul odor found in the trunk, and it also permeated to the interior of the car. There was chloroform in an air sample from the trunk, but there was no chloroform found in the interior of the car. Several people claimed they smelled human decomposition in the trunk, several others claimed they smelled a bad odor. So for me, thus far into the trunk evidence, it is looking or smelling like there may have been a dead body in the trunk, but it might have been an odor from the white trash bag. Next, we know flies flew out when GA and SB opened the trunk, and GA testified he heard maggots making a popping sound inside the white trash bag. Assuming there had been a body decomposing in the trunk at some point, thousands upon thousands of flies and fly casings and pupai would have been expected to be found not only in the trunk, but in the interior of the car as well. However, unlike the bad odor, the flies followed the same path as the chloroform and stayed only in the trunk, and amazingly in far less numbers than would be logically expected.

At this point, it is likely that there had been a body decomposing in the trunk, but it is also quite possible that there had never been a body decomposing in the trunk. So we go to the next piece of evidence. The stain. CA and LA said there had always been stains in the trunk. GA said there was a basketball sized stain in the trunk. Considering these sources, I took these statements with a grain of salt, and in my opinion, even if Caylee had been in a fetal position, the impression she would have left would have been much larger than a basketball. An officer used an alternate light source, and the stain looked like it may be blood or decompositional fluids. The vehicle was taken to the OCSO forensic garage and the csi's there tested to determine what caused the stain. Their tests came up negative for blood, negative for decompositional fluids, and negative for dna. At this point, although it is still possible that there may have been a body decomposing in the trunk, it is now just as likely that there was not a dead body in the trunk. But lets go further.

Unsatisfied with the OCSO csi results, carpet and air samples were sent to Dr. V. along with some of the contents of the white trash bag. Dr. V using technology only he can use claimed there was a shockingly high level of chloroform in the trunk, and that a fatty substance like adipocere was found on paper towells. He stated that the shockingly high amount of chloroform detected could not have been caused by a decomposing body alone. The defense cross examined and determined that Dr. V had done a qualative report, not a quantative report. How can a shockingly high level of chloroform be determined, if you do not know the quantity? Dr. V states that the fatty acid substance like adipocere contained steoric acid,palmeric acid, oleic acid and paleroleic acid, all of which are part of the makeup of adipocere, and all of which are part of the makeup of cheeses, and other dairy products, and further testing would be required to determine what this substance actually was. So now we have an odor that may have come from a dead body, or from a kitchen trash bag with maggots in it. We have some flies, but not really enough flies to determine whether they were in the trunk because of a dead body, or they were in the trunk because of the contents in a white kitchen trash bag. We have a stain, that although initially believed to have been caused by human decompositional fluids, no evidence recovered from the stain could confirm this. We have a quantative air sample, that found too much chloroform to be caused from a decomposing body inside the trunk, yet no chloroform found in the interior of the car, although the odor found its way from the trunk to the interior of the car. And we have a fatty substance like adipocere that could be either from a decomposing body (which although adipocere can form as early as within a few hours of death, it NORMALLY takes at least 2 to 3 weeks to form), or from something inside the kitchen from where the white kitchen trash bag originated.

There is much more, but the debate is the same. My claim is that I am not looking at each individual piece of evidence and raising doubt to it. I am piecing together both strings of evidence, one for and one against. And I come up to close to call which one is more believeable. And when both sides are equally believeable the jury must side with the defense, and that is why I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Sustained
08-06-2011, 03:24 PM
For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

RR0004
08-06-2011, 03:32 PM
We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
Well if anyone can think of an apple (the fruit) as a phone...I have no more words. Nada, zippo, zero.

logicalgirl
08-06-2011, 03:38 PM
Emotion didn't apply all that duct tape to Caylee's skull. If you don't believe she was murdered by KC or whoever, why would that tape be there?

Dr. G got emotional because the DT was trying to make a fool out of her and she got mad. I don't blame her. She finally came back with the statement "no child should have duct tape on their face". She determined it was a "homicide" because of it so how can you dispute that? What is your level of expertise that gives you the idea that her determination is questionnable?

No, scratch that........it doesn't even matter. What reason would Caylee have had that duct tape on her face or anywhere on her skull?

Actually, if you think back - it was a Supreme Court judge in the Huck case appeal who declared there is no reason whatsoever to have duct tape across the nose and mouth of an individual except to prevent them from breathing.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 03:40 PM
For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...
I don't think Casey ever felt anything EVER. She is IMO the kind of person who would view an apple as a phone. Queen of distorting reality (much like the jurors). She has no doubt convinced herself that life is whatever she imagines it to be. I truly hope she imagines it in a place far away from here. Regardless of the verdict, I do believe she's dangerous.

logicalgirl
08-06-2011, 03:42 PM
For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

Sustained I've read and read and read your comments in this thread and said thanks both for your tenacity and courage to be posting over and over again .

But this is the only time I'm going to disagree with you my friend. When FKC walks past a schoolyard of children, I don't think Caylee will come to mind at all, and when she sees something feasting on carrion, I don't think Caylee will come to mind, for the same reason that when I throw something away that is garbage TO ME, I never think of it again.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 03:43 PM
Yes.



I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:



Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.



Sound reasoning is expected.



It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?
Wow!
Brilliant post, brilliant mind.
Thank you.

Sustained
08-06-2011, 03:52 PM
Let me start with the odor in the trunk. First off, there was a white trash bag in the trunk that came from a kitchen. There was a foul odor found in the trunk, and it also permeated to the interior of the car. There was chloroform in an air sample from the trunk, but there was no chloroform found in the interior of the car. Several people claimed they smelled human decomposition in the trunk, several others claimed they smelled a bad odor. So for me, thus far into the trunk evidence, it is looking or smelling like there may have been a dead body in the trunk, but it might have been an odor from the white trash bag. Next, we know flies flew out when GA and SB opened the trunk, and GA testified he heard maggots making a popping sound inside the white trash bag. Assuming there had been a body decomposing in the trunk at some point, thousands upon thousands of flies and fly casings and pupai would have been expected to be found not only in the trunk, but in the interior of the car as well. However, unlike the bad odor, the flies followed the same path as the chloroform and stayed only in the trunk, and amazingly in far less numbers than would be logically expected.

Why did the trunk and the entire car smell of decomp two years later ? From a bag of garbage ? How do you know that the people who smelled the bad odor had formerly smelled the odor of human decomp ? There was no food found in the garbage bag at all, so how do you know the maggots found were not feasting on the adipocere and FCA cleaned the vehicle before dumping it at the Amscot ? She could easily have vacuumed the trunk, eliminating all of the fly casings and pupai, but leaving the chloroform smell embedded in the carpet.

At this point, it is likely that there had been a body decomposing in the trunk, but it is also quite possible that there had never been a body decomposing in the trunk. So we go to the next piece of evidence. The stain. CA and LA said there had always been stains in the trunk. GA said there was a basketball sized stain in the trunk. Considering these sources, I took these statements with a grain of salt, and in my opinion, even if Caylee had been in a fetal position, the impression she would have left would have been much larger than a basketball. An officer used an alternate light source, and the stain looked like it may be blood or decompositional fluids. The vehicle was taken to the OCSO forensic garage and the csi's there tested to determine what caused the stain. Their tests came up negative for blood, negative for decompositional fluids, and negative for dna. At this point, although it is still possible that there may have been a body decomposing in the trunk, it is now just as likely that there was not a dead body in the trunk. But lets go further.

You forget the hair with the death band on it, plus the cadaver dogs hitting on the trunk of the car. Cadaver dogs do not hit on garbage. As for the stain, LA could have been talking about different stains that the one supposedly left by Caylee's remains. I don't recall of the stain mentioned by GA as the size of a basketball was the one introduced as the one appearing to show the outline of a child in the fetal position. But I personally do not need this stain to conclude there was a dead body in the trunk.

Unsatisfied with the OCSO csi results, carpet and air samples were sent to Dr. V. along with some of the contents of the white trash bag. Dr. V using technology only he can use claimed there was a shockingly high level of chloroform in the trunk, and that a fatty substance like adipocere was found on paper towells. He stated that the shockingly high amount of chloroform detected could not have been caused by a decomposing body alone. The defense cross examined and determined that Dr. V had done a qualative report, not a quantative report. How can a shockingly high level of chloroform be determined, if you do not know the quantity? Dr. V states that the fatty acid substance like adipocere contained steoric acid,palmeric acid, oleic acid and paleroleic acid, all of which are part of the makeup of adipocere, and all of which are part of the makeup of cheeses, and other dairy products, and further testing would be required to determine what this substance actually was. So now we have an odor that may have come from a dead body, or from a kitchen trash bag with maggots in it. We have some flies, but not really enough flies to determine whether they were in the trunk because of a dead body, or they were in the trunk because of the contents in a white kitchen trash bag. We have a stain, that although initially believed to have been caused by human decompositional fluids, no evidence recovered from the stain could confirm this. We have a quantative air sample, that found too much chloroform to be caused from a decomposing body inside the trunk, yet no chloroform found in the interior of the car, although the odor found its way from the trunk to the interior of the car. And we have a fatty substance like adipocere that could be either from a decomposing body (which although adipocere can form as early as within a few hours of death, it NORMALLY takes at least 2 to 3 weeks to form), or from something inside the kitchen from where the white kitchen trash bag originated.

If someone told you that a shockingly high amount of rain fell last night, what would you think ? That it was a brief shower, or a tremendous downpour ? I don't need a quantitative study to show me that a shockingly high level of rain or chloroform MEANS a boatload of either. And once again about the kitchen bag and the adipocere, where is the evidence that there was any actual food in the trunk and not empty containers ?

There is much more, but the debate is the same. My claim is that I am not looking at each individual piece of evidence and raising doubt to it. I am piecing together both strings of evidence, one for and one against. And I come up to close to call which one is more believeable. And when both sides are equally believeable the jury must side with the defense, and that is why I think the verdict was correct.

This is where you and I will always differ in opinion ... I do not find anything the DT threw out as evidence to be believable, nor do I think their "experts" refuted anything to which the State's experts testified. And I believe that JA/LDB turned the DT experts into State experts.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Sorry to jump in, but my comments in blue ...

RR0004
08-06-2011, 03:57 PM
I agree with the thought that just because it could be something other than an apple doesn't mean it is reasonable to conclude that it is.

However, when the burden of proof is on the state, and the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed an apple, then stating it has a core and a skin is not enough to prove it is an apple BARD, when there are so many other things that have a core and a skin. The state could have proven it was an apple with further testing to remove any doubt. They chose not to do the further testing. WHY? If this is indeed an apple, why not prove it? I believe they wanted everyone to think it was an apple, but had they done the further testing, it would have been found to be an apple phone, not an apple, and that is why the further tests weren't done. In addition, if it were an apple it helped their CIC, if it were to prove to be an apple phone it would have damaged their CIC, therefore, they did not want to risk confirmation, and chose to present it as an apple.

In the case of adipocere, this fatty substance found on the paper towells, that was consistant with adipocere, was found inside a white kitchen trash bag. I believe it is reasonable to want to find out definatively if this substance was adipocere, because the fatty acids that Dr. V mentioned are found in a number of items that are normally found in a kitchen. That is NOT inferior reasoning.

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
There's a lot of supposition here. I'm not quite sure where the distrust of LE comes from, but I do know that it's been stated countless times here (by professionals no less) that scientists will not give scientific results that way. Just like they won't say "with 100% certainty". So juries will never have that.
And...I'll say it again...the jurors did not analyze the evidence as much as you have (or many here have). I wish they had.

Sustained
08-06-2011, 03:57 PM
Sustained I've read and read and read your comments in this thread and said thanks both for your tenacity and courage to be posting over and over again .

But this is the only time I'm going to disagree with you my friend. When FKC walks past a schoolyard of children, I don't think Caylee will come to mind at all, and when she sees something feasting on carrion, I don't think Caylee will come to mind, for the same reason that when I throw something away that is garbage TO ME, I never think of it again.

Thanks logicalgirl - I'd like to think I'm right and FCA has some form of conscious, but maybe you're right. And if you are, it's just a matter of time before this shell of a human being offends again and next time she won't be so lucky. And if I'm right, she'll be tortured throughout the rest of her life and eternity.

lauriej
08-06-2011, 04:11 PM
For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...


..i have to disagree on this ------WE-----might experience those feelings, but not kc.

..she put "all that" behind her the day she took her trash to the swamp ,threw it out and began her new life---the better one, that did not include a little snot nose as part of it.

..this is a "mother" that had no problem using the pics OF her 'missing' child --( not to GIVE to the media to splash all over to help FIND her) but to pay for HER own defense for lying to LE & being charged with child neglect for "losing" her in the 1st place!

..after 3 years of sending their P.I.'s all over creation trying to find someone! anyone! that they could pin their defense on------who did kc finally decide would be the perfect scapegoat? the ONE person that couldn't take the stand and say that caylee did NOT drown???

..caylee!

..that little brat opened the sliding door, climbed the pool ladder---and drowned herself!!

..i do NOT for one second think that kc looks at anything , and is 'tortured', 'haunted' or even reminded of caylee-----kc put "that child" out of her mind a LONG time ago.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 04:13 PM
Thanks logicalgirl - I'd like to think I'm right and FCA has some form of conscious, but maybe you're right. And if you are, it's just a matter of time before this shell of a human being offends again and next time she won't be so lucky. And if I'm right, she'll be tortured throughout the rest of her life and eternity.
If Casey runs out of money...which I hope she never gets...you'll see her true colors. She will be looking for a guy very soon. She'll need some "thing" to fall back on once the money disappears...and it will. I feel sorry for her next victims. I pray she will never have another child.

thedeviledadvocate
08-06-2011, 04:14 PM
Respectfully, do no suggest that state did anything underhanded here. They did not. There was no definitive test to to say with 100% accuracy that adipocere was on those towels. No test like that exists. All they can do is test for the components that make up adipocere, and even then those components can come from other sources as well. And even if there was such a test and the state didn't get the results they wanted, the state would not just throw it out and not use it. They could get into serious, mistrial proportions of trouble for denying the defense evidence that it wasn't adipocere. That did not happen. I think part of the problem is that people think are tests out there to prove absolutely EVERYTHING with 100% percent accuracy and that is false. Shoot, if that were possible, a lot more people would be in jail. Instead, tests are interpreted, and it's up to the jury to use their imagination and critical thinking to decide whose interpretation is better, which the jury did not do here.

Getting back to the hypothesis about the state, putting out false statements like this is not cool. Disagree with the verdict but don't accuse the state of doing bad things, even in a what if scenario, unless there is actual proof on such impropriety on their part. There's plenty of proof of all of things the defense did wrong. And if the state made a mistake, they quickly admitted to it and corrected it. I'm not saying the state is always perfect, but in this case, there was no impropriety on their part whatsoever. It's worthless to accuse them of it even in hypothesis.

And the state's burden, which has been repeated time and again, is not remove ALL doubt, just all REASONABLE doubt, which with some people has gone way too far into the category of unreasonable. What happened to using imagination and putting things together? Why must people have everything in row, a complete picture by the end of trial? This does not happen in most trials! And people still get convicted, without bodies, without solid evidence and only circumstantial evidence. It seems some people think no one should get convicted unless there's completely solid proof accompanied by a video of the perp doing the deed. Good Lord. That is not the burden of the state to have at every trial to get someone convicted.

Shoot, if looks like apple, smells like an apple, has the skin and core of an apple, then it's probably an apple. It is unreasonable to assume it's something else because imagination can't be used to put the evidence together and conclude it's an apple. The attitude of there wasn't enough so we'll never know is ludicrious. That's like saying we'll never know what puzzle is supposed to look like without every piece and the box top. A puzzle can still be put together with many missing pieces but the picture can still be figured out with critical thinking and imagination.

A lot of people just don't think critically anymore. If it's not layed out 100% in front of them so they don't have to do any mental work to figure it out, then why bother. There must be doubt because everything's not there to say she did it, so acquit. Ignore all of the evidence of her selfishness like the videos, jails calls, and destroying her own family in court to save her self; her lack of caring that her daughter is dead; her lies on top of lies on top of lies about her child being missing and kidnapped when that child is long dead; her being the only person with ANY motive to want Caylee gone; the dumpsite being down the street from Casey's home; the smell of death in the back of her car that she said she had sole possession of; and items from that house found in the bag in the swamp holding the duct taped face of a child who most certainly didn't die from drowning. I am so disappointed in that all of that somehow wasn't enough, and no proof of ANYTHING the defense said was brought forward, and the defense was completely inept on top of that, but somehow the defense was more believable than all of the circumstantial evidence that said otherwise. And the unreasonable thinking here is just astounding. Somehow being weird equates to it being okay to not call 911 if a child drowns. Weird people should have no responsiblity whatsover to anyone or anything because they are weird and don't understand. Because George acted weird on the stand, he must have done something. Because the state is not cow towing to the jury and the defense is, the defense is more likable and must be right. I could on and on with the complete unreasonableness and lack of critical thinking and imagination that is this verdict. I sincerely hope verdicts like Casey's aren't the future of our justice system, but from what I've seen of these twelve jurors and many on this board, I'm afraid it is.

All IMO.

In court, the defense expert was asked by JB if there was any way to determine if this fatty like substance was adipocere, and that expert said "yes, with further testing it could." I believe that expert knows more about adipocere than I do, so I will take his word for it. JA tried very hard to impeach this witnesses testimony, but he failed in my opinion to impeach him.

As for whether or not the state did anything underhanded, that is your word, not mine. I believe the state wanted to win period. They outlawyered JB every step of the way. As I was told by some posters on this site, if I was looking for the truth in this trial, I was looking in the wrong place. The PT wanted to win, and there are many, many, many things a prosecutor can do that is legal, yet (again using your word) underhanded. The 84 searches is an example. As are the bench notes of CSI GB. Both things they did here are legal. Some may consider both of these things, using your word, underhanded.

I do want to be clear though, I do not think the state did anything illegal. I think they outsmarted the defense numerous times, and JB was too much of a rookie to catch them. Both sides wanted to win. Both sides were doing everything they could legally do to win. Whenever the defense did anything that looked or seemed to be, again your word, underhanded, the media annihilated them. No one in the media asked why the state did not perform the further testing to determine if it was adipocere, they simple reported that it was adipocere. When JJ talked to the defense investigator and taped the conversation, he told the cops what he had done, the tape was sealed, and he was threatened. We will never know what he told the defense about the searches in the wooded area, because he pleaded the 5th on the stand. That all is legal by the state, but in my opinion, that is not a search for the whole truth, and it may be considered by some to be your word, underhanded.

I think verdicts like KC's will happen time and time again, if the prosecution tries to convict with the kind evidence that the state used in this case. Sometimes, they may get a conviction using this same type of evidence, but sometimes they may get what this case got them. In this particular case, I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 04:33 PM
In court, the defense expert was asked by JB if there was any way to determine if this fatty like substance was adipocere, and that expert said "yes, with further testing it could." I believe that expert knows more about adipocere than I do, so I will take his word for it. JA tried very hard to impeach this witnesses testimony, but he failed in my opinion to impeach him.

As for whether or not the state did anything underhanded, that is your word, not mine. I believe the state wanted to win period. They outlawyered JB every step of the way. As I was told by some posters on this site, if I was looking for the truth in this trial, I was looking in the wrong place. The PT wanted to win, and there are many, many, many things a prosecutor can do that is legal, yet (again using your word) underhanded. The 84 searches is an example. As are the bench notes of CSI GB. Both things they did here are legal. Some may consider both of these things, using your word, underhanded.

I do want to be clear though, I do not think the state did anything illegal. I think they outsmarted the defense numerous times, and JB was too much of a rookie to catch them. Both sides wanted to win. Both sides were doing everything they could legally do to win. Whenever the defense did anything that looked or seemed to be, again your word, underhanded, the media annihilated them. No one in the media asked why the state did not perform the further testing to determine if it was adipocere, they simple reported that it was adipocere. When JJ talked to the defense investigator and taped the conversation, he told the cops what he had done, the tape was sealed, and he was threatened. We will never know what he told the defense about the searches in the wooded area, because he pleaded the 5th on the stand. That all is legal by the state, but in my opinion, that is not a search for the whole truth, and it may be considered by some to be your word, underhanded.

I think verdicts like KC's will happen time and time again, if the prosecution tries to convict with the kind evidence that the state used in this case. Sometimes, they may get a conviction using this same type of evidence, but sometimes they may get what this case got them. In this particular case, I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
As far as further testing...perhaps they thought "enough" of what they did have. To assume they didn't do further testing is IMO implying that they did do something "underhanded". Again, this is an examination of the evidence independently. Those that view the verdict as correct will discount the other evidence tied to the adipocere. As far as the 84 searches was explained...and to be honest with you, we never heard/saw that in the early evidence so IMO most here based their opinions on the 1 search (and still the majority opinion differs from the jury's)...it was an error that did happen when there was further "testing" (analyzing). To view this as some sort of "ploy" on the State's part...is IMHO viewing the State as being "underhanded".

What I don't get-for those who agree- is how the State can be overconfident with the evidence one minute to not being confident so as to require them to play at all costs to win.

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 04:55 PM
We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Yes, very simpleminded, but it wasn't my idea to take it all down to an apple :D :D :whoosh:

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

Lord almighty :D :D You could have done Baez's job better than he did. That is pure kerflunkelation, at it's finest. I guess what it boils down to, for me, is that I trust my ability to process information enough that I don't need to go through all that to reach what I consider a well reasoned conclusion.

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

If the jurors saw the evidence presented in such oversimplified terms, then no wonder they failed their duty.

NotRocketSighence
08-06-2011, 05:01 PM
I'm assuming it would explain or rather be part and parcel of what you stated in your post. Mothers who fail to bond may not show remorse when their child dies. Mothers who fail to bond might find it easy to go about their business as if their child never existed. Casey may not have attached to her daughter which could explain a lot of her behavior.
Sorry...I feel like I've had a light bulb moment. Thanks.

To me...there is no reasonable explanation why anyone would toss their child in a dump. And no, there was nothing that connected RK...and there was nothing that connected GA...IMO. Casey was the one who didn't want her daughter found.

For me, the possibility that she might not of bonded, might not of had the nurturing protective instincts, might of explained a lot of the very emotionally charged, damning pre-judged stuff out there about her.

These bonds and instincts don't come automatically to *every* mother who gives birth.

For me, it adds another layer to consider and very much explains the question in your second comment.

logicalgirl
08-06-2011, 05:14 PM
Actually, if you think back - it was a Supreme Court judge in the Huck case appeal who declared there is no reason whatsoever to have duct tape across the nose and mouth of an individual except to prevent them from breathing.

I apologize for making the above statement without the link which can be found at:

http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions2/5D03-1906.op.html
for more information on this case precedent.

" More importantly, the
assertion that Mr. Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly
reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to
prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There
is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is
dead. In addition, the State presented evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes.
The medical examiner testified within a reasonable degree of medical probability that the
cause of death was asphyxia and the manner of death was a homicide. "

This was another duct tape, garbage bags, thrown away like garbage + water case. Guilty verdict + appeal.

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 05:15 PM
Regarding the adipocere and the the other decomposition related forensics . . .

They may have failed, in themselves, to be conclusive. I more or less agree with that.

Take out the adipocere and decay chemicals by themselves. Isolate them from the historical context of the "death smell" identified by Cindy, George, the tow yard guy, Lee, Casey herself, the cadaver dogs, and a handful of other people (including at least one expert witness who noted an odor of decay after the lining had been in police custody for two years) . . .

Whether that greasy stuff was adipocere or not does not render witness testimony meaningless.

It's like saying an apple is not conclusively an apple because the apple genome is incomplete or only mitochondrial. I'm gonna look at the apple, wash it off and eat it while you (the generic you) are still running forensics.

I'm gonna eat it because I am considering the entire BODY of evidence, not just the genome.

cuppy199
08-06-2011, 05:39 PM
Its just as easy to say that sinse there might of been no bond KA had no problem killing and throwing the child away like trash . The door swings both ways. It can just as easily explain her behavior and why it was so important to make LE think it was a missing child they were looking for.

askfornina
08-06-2011, 05:55 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html

interesting article.

com n sense
08-06-2011, 06:09 PM
You are right --now tell me how the jurors came to a verdict without that consideration? Blows me away.

During this past month I've had a reoccurring thought>>>>> did the DT vote to allow the least smart folks as jurors? :maddening:

EVERYONE I talk to that followed the case or even just started to follow it when the trial started - all agree that something very fishy went down.
Even the 12 jurors admitted they were crying & sick to their stomachs giving her a NG vertict. Something just does not add up.

MissJames
08-06-2011, 06:16 PM
Sustained I've read and read and read your comments in this thread and said thanks both for your tenacity and courage to be posting over and over again .

But this is the only time I'm going to disagree with you my friend. When FKC walks past a schoolyard of children, I don't think Caylee will come to mind at all, and when she sees something feasting on carrion, I don't think Caylee will come to mind, for the same reason that when I throw something away that is garbage TO ME, I never think of it again.

I agree and was about to post the same thing. It won't bother her at all :maddening:

com n sense
08-06-2011, 06:18 PM
For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...


I can't agree with this. IMO She does not nor did she ever care about Caylee so it won't affect her at all.
Everytime she walks by a park, school, car, she will think "I have no regrets for I am free to live the beautiful life" She may be reminded of being tied down for those 3 years & feel a wave of relief everytime she see's a little girl.
She probably smiles when she she's a roll of duct tape.
She no doubt laughs when she sees a police car.

MissJames
08-06-2011, 06:22 PM
Thanks logicalgirl - I'd like to think I'm right and FCA has some form of conscious, but maybe you're right. And if you are, it's just a matter of time before this shell of a human being offends again and next time she won't be so lucky. And if I'm right, she'll be tortured throughout the rest of her life and eternity.

You know why I don't think she'll ever be bothered by what she did? The 31 days starting within hours of when Caylee was most likely killed. She did not have a care in the world the night of June 16th when she went to Blockbusters with TonE. No one sensed any concern from her during those days.She was happy and bubbly and busy.When TonE picked her up at Amscot she wasn't sick or throwing up or crying. She just didn't care .Even the smell didn't bother her as much as it would us.
That's why I just do not get the NG verdict. Even if Caylee died by accident,she showed she just did not care.

Sustained
08-06-2011, 06:24 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html

interesting article.
I would have expected no less from a former defense attorney who was an advisor for the defense in the O.J. trial and represented Claus von Bulow, who most people think murdered his wife Sunny. And frankly, I'm surprised that Dershowitz was not at dinner in New York with Geragos and Baez a couple of weeks ago. Birds of a feather ...

askfornina
08-06-2011, 06:29 PM
I would have expected no less from a former defense attorney who was an advisor for the defense in the O.J. trial and represented Claus von Bulow, who most people think murdered his wife Sunny. And frankly, I'm surprised that Dershowitz was not at dinner in New York with Geragos and Baez a couple of weeks ago. Birds of a feather ...

i am well aware of who wrote the article, still an interesting read to me.

having just read his biography, i would hardly put him in the same league as Baez or Geragos, imo..but alright.

MissJames
08-06-2011, 06:38 PM
I would have expected no less from a former defense attorney who was an advisor for the defense in the O.J. trial and represented Claus von Bulow, who most people think murdered his wife Sunny. And frankly, I'm surprised that Dershowitz was not at dinner in New York with Geragos and Baez a couple of weeks ago. Birds of a feather ...

Agree. It's not like he would be willing to consider the possibility that the jury screwed up the deliberation process or that there is now a probable murderer free to commit murder again ( and we keep hearing that Casey needs protection! ).
No,anytime a defense wins a case ,even if a criminal walks free,AD will celebrate the WIN. Unfortunately it's the victims and the public who lose.

Horace Finklestein
08-06-2011, 07:01 PM
We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Would you let Casey babysit your kids? If so please help me understand why...

askfornina
08-06-2011, 07:08 PM
i know it wasn't directed toward me, but i really hate the "would you let casey babysit your kids" question. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

to answer the question, no i would not let casey babysit my kids. because i don't know her. i wouldn't let anyone i don't know babysit my kids.

assuming i did know her, and i found her unsuitable as a childcare provider, that does not equate to her murdering her child.

LCoastMom
08-06-2011, 07:12 PM
Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Respectfully snipped

Re BBM The jury had over 300 pieces of evidence at their disposal to evaluate when coming to a decision. They chose to ignore all 300+ items. How is it even remotely possible that ONE more little scientific statement/analysis would have turned this verdict around?

IMO something swayed this jury but it was not presented as evidence and nothing was going to change the outcome.

For me, the possibility that she might not of bonded, might not of had the nurturing protective instincts, might of explained a lot of the very emotionally charged, damning pre-judged stuff out there about her.

These bonds and instincts don't come automatically to *every* mother who gives birth.

For me, it adds another layer to consider and very much explains the question in your second comment.

Not everyone who lacks said instincts kills their children or would ever dump their children in a swamp, so why does CFCA get consideration because she didn't bond with Caylee? IMO it is another excuse that lets CFCA off the hook for what she has done.

thedeviledadvocate
08-06-2011, 07:45 PM
Regarding the adipocere and the the other decomposition related forensics . . .

They may have failed, in themselves, to be conclusive. I more or less agree with that.

Take out the adipocere and decay chemicals by themselves. Isolate them from the historical context of the "death smell" identified by Cindy, George, the tow yard guy, Lee, Casey herself, the cadaver dogs, and a handful of other people (including at least one expert witness who noted an odor of decay after the lining had been in police custody for two years) . . .

Whether that greasy stuff was adipocere or not does not render witness testimony meaningless.

It's like saying an apple is not conclusively an apple because the apple genome is incomplete or only mitochondrial. I'm gonna look at the apple, wash it off and eat it while you (the generic you) are still running forensics.

I'm gonna eat it because I am considering the entire BODY of evidence, not just the genome.

Between this thread and the two previous threads dealing with agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict, it is quite obvious that those who disagree and those who agree will never come to an agreement with each other.

Just as those who disagree with the verdict feel they are being logical, using common sense, connecting the dots, and using the evidence as the basis for their disagreement, those who agree with the verdict feel they used logic, common sense, connected the dots, and used the evidence as the basis for their agreement.

Dr. Haskell and Dr. Hall once looked at the same report. They were each asked to develop a theory as to what happened based on the same report. The results they arrived at were polar opposites. Both are highly accredited in their field, experts. One dr. was called by the prosecution, the other by the defense. In that case, the verdict ended up guilty. Does this mean that the dr. who was on the side of the defense developed a flawed, unreasonable, illogical, theory that lacked common sense? Had the verdict ended up not guilty, would that have made the other dr's theory flawed, unreasonable, illogical and lacking in common sense?

Our differences are in opinion. When our opinion has not changed after looking at something from seemingly every angle possible, then our opinion probably will never change. This does seem to be the case here. We all believe so strongly that our opinion is correct, that we will not change it. We have strong convictions. I believe that if two of our posters, one pro, one anti verdict had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury. Does that mean that one's opinion is right and the other's opinion is wrong? I think it just means we have a difference of opinion. Some may think it isn't hot outside until it reaches 70 degrees. Some one else may think it is nice at 70 degrees but it isn't hot till it reaches 90 degrees. Simply a difference of opinion, neither is right nor wrong and both reached their opinion by what feels hot to them.

I do find the posts that explain how they reached their opinions interesting, whether I agree with them or not.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Baxter
08-06-2011, 07:59 PM
Between this thread and the two previous threads dealing with agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict, it is quite obvious that those who disagree and those who agree will never come to an agreement with each other.

Just as those who disagree with the verdict feel they are being logical, using common sense, connecting the dots, and using the evidence as the basis for their disagreement, those who agree with the verdict feel they used logic, common sense, connected the dots, and used the evidence as the basis for their agreement.

Dr. Haskell and Dr. Hall once looked at the same report. They were each asked to develop a theory as to what happened based on the same report. The results they arrived at were polar opposites. Both are highly accredited in their field, experts. One dr. was called by the prosecution, the other by the defense. In that case, the verdict ended up guilty. Does this mean that the dr. who was on the side of the defense developed a flawed, unreasonable, illogical, theory that lacked common sense? Had the verdict ended up not guilty, would that have made the other dr's theory flawed, unreasonable, illogical and lacking in common sense?

Our differences are in opinion. When our opinion has not changed after looking at something from seemingly every angle possible, then our opinion probably will never change. This does seem to be the case here. We all believe so strongly that our opinion is correct, that we will not change it. We have strong convictions. I believe that if two of our posters, one pro, one anti verdict had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury. Does that mean that one's opinion is right and the other's opinion is wrong? I think it just means we have a difference of opinion. Some may think it isn't hot outside until it reaches 70 degrees. Some one else may think it is nice at 70 degrees but it isn't hot till it reaches 90 degrees. Simply a difference of opinion, neither is right nor wrong and both reached their opinion by what feels hot to them.

I do find the posts that explain how they reached their opinions interesting, whether I agree with them or not.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

BBM

The jury never considered, compare and contrasted or did anything with that evidence. Their ears were closed after the defense shouted their imaginary opening.

LambChop
08-06-2011, 08:02 PM
The only difference with the experts is that the SA's are the first to get reports from their experts and they report their findings and/or opinions and it usually stops there. The defense can shop around up to a short period before the trial date until they can find someone who is willing to present an opposing opinion. Defense could have gone through 20 to 30 experts before they found someone who would give them a favorable report. Also an old trick used by defense is don't show them all your cards...Dr. Spitz obviously was only shown one side of Caylee's head from the crime scene photos with the duct tape because he testified to that in court. But for defense it's how you play the game......win some, lose some. jmo

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 08:04 PM
Respectfully snipped

Re BBM The jury had over 300 pieces of evidence at their disposal to evaluate when coming to a decision. They chose to ignore all 300+ items. How is it even remotely possible that ONE more little scientific statement/analysis would have turned this verdict around?

There was enough critical circumstantial evidence that didn't need forensic analysis. In the great scheme of the body of evidence, the adipocere issue, yeah or nay, seems irrelevant.

Maybe a third or a half of the 300+ pieces of evidence were inconclusive or not "mature" and ready for court. For the majority of people who've been following, the remaining evidence was enough to put a sound conclusion together. Heck, even the Pinellas 12 put it together enough to be "sick" and "disgusted". They just lacked the courage to take the responsibility they ACCEPTED.


IMO something swayed this jury but it was not presented as evidence and nothing was going to change the outcome.

IMO, it was their collective lack of guts. And a couple of very outspoken jurists who've made a lack of guts in life into some kind of moral high ground.

I wonder if the jury selection consultants have measures or indexes to determine if a person is likely to wimp out (read: give up and make excuses) when confronted with such a grave decision?

Not everyone who lacks said instincts kills their children or would ever dump their children in a swamp, so why does CFCA get consideration because she didn't bond with Caylee? IMO it is another excuse that let's CFCA off the hook for what she has done.

Like the jury, and many folks, unfortunately, a ton of effort is put into absolving responsibility, avoiding it or sticking fingers in ears and la la la-ing it away :crazy:

Even if the mothering instinct was a discreet blob of neurons in the brain, and Casey was born without it, she still did something stupid or evil that resulted in the death of Caylee. It takes a lot of maturity to accept responsibility for one's actions, even to see clearly where responsibility lies. It's a cop out to blame a missing blob of brain for Caylee's death, and insulting to Caylee's memory too.

NotRocketSighence
08-06-2011, 08:31 PM
Would you let Casey babysit your kids? If so please help me understand why...

I wouldn't let you babysit my children. I wouldn't let anyone here babysit my children. I don't know any of you.

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 08:33 PM
Between this thread and the two previous threads dealing with agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict, it is quite obvious that those who disagree and those who agree will never come to an agreement with each other.

Just as those who disagree with the verdict feel they are being logical, using common sense, connecting the dots, and using the evidence as the basis for their disagreement, those who agree with the verdict feel they used logic, common sense, connected the dots, and used the evidence as the basis for their agreement.

Dr. Haskell and Dr. Hall once looked at the same report. They were each asked to develop a theory as to what happened based on the same report. The results they arrived at were polar opposites. Both are highly accredited in their field, experts. One dr. was called by the prosecution, the other by the defense. In that case, the verdict ended up guilty. Does this mean that the dr. who was on the side of the defense developed a flawed, unreasonable, illogical, theory that lacked common sense? Had the verdict ended up not guilty, would that have made the other dr's theory flawed, unreasonable, illogical and lacking in common sense?

Our differences are in opinion. When our opinion has not changed after looking at something from seemingly every angle possible, then our opinion probably will never change. This does seem to be the case here. We all believe so strongly that our opinion is correct, that we will not change it. We have strong convictions. I believe that if two of our posters, one pro, one anti verdict had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury. Does that mean that one's opinion is right and the other's opinion is wrong? I think it just means we have a difference of opinion. Some may think it isn't hot outside until it reaches 70 degrees. Some one else may think it is nice at 70 degrees but it isn't hot till it reaches 90 degrees. Simply a difference of opinion, neither is right nor wrong and both reached their opinion by what feels hot to them.

I do find the posts that explain how they reached their opinions interesting, whether I agree with them or not.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Opinion is all about the person having it. Facts stand alone, and you can opine about them until the cows come home and facts will remain exactly the same.

You suggest that my part in this discussion is based upon my opinion, and that is only partly true. I (hope I have) qualified when I do give an opinion. Otherwise, I am doing my best to stick to the known facts.

With due respect, I wouldn't even bother having this discussion with anyone who is just composing opinions. I mean, how uninteresting. You personally are very interesting, don't get me wrong. My point is, opinions are like hind ends, everyone has one, has the right to have however many they can come up with and it's very intrusive and controlling of me to change something as deeply personal as YOUR OPINION.

It seems to me that it is ducking responsibility, for one's own words, to qualify ALL of them with "my opinion only". What a way to avoid taking responsibility. I think the mods have made this issue clear, for instance, calling FCA a murderer after she's been acquitted is disrespectful of the justice system, we are very respectful of it around here, and ought to be qualified with "IMO".

A person who is working with the facts and evidence of the Anthony case, drawing conclusions and making statements is involving themselves in a much deeper way than "JMO".

Unless, I suppose, a person equates having an opinion with having a belief. That is confusion.

I for one have beliefs about what happened to Caylee, and I derived those beliefs (not opinions) from examining the evidence. I am discussing my beliefs here (with some opinions now and then, of course), and I thought I was discussing your beliefs with you.

If it turns out all I am discussing is your opinions, then . . . well, two things. One, your opinions sure come across as beliefs and have fooled me. You have spent a lot of time here discussing your opinions as if they were based on the facts and evidence of the case. You've spent a lot of effort positing your opinions as statements that define some of the realities around this case.

Two, you have every right to your opinions and I have NO right to get in there and challenge them. I don't like to cross people's boundaries like that. I'm sad though because you are a great sparring partner :D

kimpage
08-06-2011, 09:06 PM
I read on another thread not to read this one now i know why.uggghhhhh. There have to be some of the Pinellas 12 on here.Wished i was on the jury i would have made them go over the evidence...That is all before i post something that will get me a timeout.......:banghead::banghead::banghead::bangh ead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

logicalgirl
08-06-2011, 09:10 PM
The only difference with the experts is that the SA's are the first to get reports from their experts and they report their findings and/or opinions and it usually stops there. The defense can shop around up to a short period before the trial date until they can find someone who is willing to present an opposing opinion. Defense could have gone through 20 to 30 experts before they found someone who would give them a favorable report. Also an old trick used by defense is don't show them all your cards...Dr. Spitz obviously was only shown one side of Caylee's head from the crime scene photos with the duct tape because he testified to that in court. But for defense it's how you play the game......win some, lose some. jmo

Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

RR0004
08-06-2011, 09:14 PM
For me, the possibility that she might not of bonded, might not of had the nurturing protective instincts, might of explained a lot of the very emotionally charged, damning pre-judged stuff out there about her.

These bonds and instincts don't come automatically to *every* mother who gives birth.

For me, it adds another layer to consider and very much explains the question in your second comment.
So her failure to bond says more about "us" than it does about her? That's a unique way of looking at things. How does one pre-judge? Don't we have to analyze behavior AFTER we know of it?
Sorry at this point I can't remember my question...lol.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 09:17 PM
Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!
I wondered today (in an angry moment) how they sleep knowing what Casey did. I hope they have nightmares.

RANCH
08-06-2011, 09:17 PM
The only difference with the experts is that the SA's are the first to get reports from their experts and they report their findings and/or opinions and it usually stops there. The defense can shop around up to a short period before the trial date until they can find someone who is willing to present an opposing opinion. Defense could have gone through 20 to 30 experts before they found someone who would give them a favorable report. Also an old trick used by defense is don't show them all your cards...Dr. Spitz obviously was only shown one side of Caylee's head from the crime scene photos with the duct tape because he testified to that in court. But for defense it's how you play the game......win some, lose some. jmo

Good point about the defense experts.One thing I noticed was the defense experts got their point across on direct, but on cross by JA 99% of the time, they bolstered the prosecutions case.I guess I see it different than this jury.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Opinion is all about the person having it. Facts stand alone, and you can opine about them until the cows come home and facts will remain exactly the same.

You suggest that my part in this discussion is based upon my opinion, and that is only partly true. I (hope I have) qualified when I do give an opinion. Otherwise, I am doing my best to stick to the known facts.

With due respect, I wouldn't even bother having this discussion with anyone who is just composing opinions. I mean, how uninteresting. You personally are very interesting, don't get me wrong. My point is, opinions are like hind ends, everyone has one, has the right to have however many they can come up with and it's very intrusive and controlling of me to change something as deeply personal as YOUR OPINION.

It seems to me that it is ducking responsibility, for one's own words, to qualify ALL of them with "my opinion only". What a way to avoid taking responsibility. I think the mods have made this issue clear, for instance, calling FCA a murderer after she's been acquitted is disrespectful of the justice system, we are very respectful of it around here, and ought to be qualified with "IMO".

A person who is working with the facts and evidence of the Anthony case, drawing conclusions and making statements is involving themselves in a much deeper way than "JMO".

Unless, I suppose, a person equates having an opinion with having a belief. That is confusion.

I for one have beliefs about what happened to Caylee, and I derived those beliefs (not opinions) from examining the evidence. I am discussing my beliefs here (with some opinions now and then, of course), and I thought I was discussing your beliefs with you.

If it turns out all I am discussing is your opinions, then . . . well, two things. One, your opinions sure come across as beliefs and have fooled me. You have spent a lot of time here discussing your opinions as if they were based on the facts and evidence of the case. You've spent a lot of effort positing your opinions as statements that define some of the realities around this case.

Two, you have every right to your opinions and I have NO right to get in there and challenge them. I don't like to cross people's boundaries like that. I'm sad though because you are a great sparring partner :D
I'd like to see someone who agrees with the verdict mention Caylee's name and to tell me how it feels that justice for this little girl wasn't served.
Just a random thought.

LCoastMom
08-06-2011, 09:25 PM
Between this thread and the two previous threads dealing with agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict, it is quite obvious that those who disagree and those who agree will never come to an agreement with each other.

Just as those who disagree with the verdict feel they are being logical, using common sense, connecting the dots, and using the evidence as the basis for their disagreement, those who agree with the verdict feel they used logic, common sense, connected the dots, and used the evidence as the basis for their agreement.

Dr. Haskell and Dr. Hall once looked at the same report. They were each asked to develop a theory as to what happened based on the same report. The results they arrived at were polar opposites. Both are highly accredited in their field, experts. One dr. was called by the prosecution, the other by the defense. In that case, the verdict ended up guilty. Does this mean that the dr. who was on the side of the defense developed a flawed, unreasonable, illogical, theory that lacked common sense? Had the verdict ended up not guilty, would that have made the other dr's theory flawed, unreasonable, illogical and lacking in common sense?

Our differences are in opinion. When our opinion has not changed after looking at something from seemingly every angle possible, then our opinion probably will never change. This does seem to be the case here. We all believe so strongly that our opinion is correct, that we will not change it. We have strong convictions. I believe that if two of our posters, one pro, one anti verdict had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury. Does that mean that one's opinion is right and the other's opinion is wrong? I think it just means we have a difference of opinion. Some may think it isn't hot outside until it reaches 70 degrees. Some one else may think it is nice at 70 degrees but it isn't hot till it reaches 90 degrees. Simply a difference of opinion, neither is right nor wrong and both reached their opinion by what feels hot to them.

I do find the posts that explain how they reached their opinions interesting, whether I agree with them or not.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I have wondered if in this case the defense presented a report and the State's position to their experts and asked them to come up with a theory that is as far removed from the obvious as possible.

Having experts say a bone that had sunk into the mud/debris was buried by a coyote or claim someone came along, collected Caylee's skull/mandible/hair mat and aged duct tape, put them together like a puzzle and left them to be found (in a matter of days) just made so little sense to me that I could understand JA laughing (or crying) about it. (There were plenty more but I'm sure you get my point).

The DT's job was to create reasonable doubt, while I found these theories to be preposterous - some bought into them. This is what I still don't understand.

annalia
08-06-2011, 09:27 PM
If she didn't bond with Caylee, she still knew right from wrong. If she was sexually abused, ( which I don't believe she was ) she still knew right from wrong. If she came from a dysfunctional family, she still knew right from wrong. She wasn't mentally impaired. her mother was controlling and overbearing, her father a wimp, we haven't seen anything else that indicates she was in dire circumstances growing up.

How many excuses can be made for this woman?

The prisons are full of people who came from dysfunctional families, much worse than the Anthony's, people in prison who never had a chance at a normal life as a child, people who were sexually, physically and mentally abused, mothers who never bonded with their children, all convicted of crimes because they knew right from wrong.

Maybe they should all just be set free. Never convict anyone of anything again.

On the other hand there are people all over the world who have been abused, emotionally and physically, that go on to live productive lives.

CA ain't special.

JMHO

Caligram
08-06-2011, 09:31 PM
Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

ITA. I should change my name to Cynical. Notice how the majority of the DT "expert witnesses" were kept under wraps for as long as they could, and then some. The ones who agreed to come on board had to not only disagree with the SA expert witnesses, they had to "appear" to believe the "garbage" they were spewing.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 09:33 PM
Respectfully snipped

Re BBM The jury had over 300 pieces of evidence at their disposal to evaluate when coming to a decision. They chose to ignore all 300+ items. How is it even remotely possible that ONE more little scientific statement/analysis would have turned this verdict around?



(respectfully snipped :seeya:)

LCoastM,
300 pieces of evidence that was ignored. Another thing that gave me great pause was the fact that during deliberations- not one time-NOT ONCE-did the jurors ask to reevaluate, reread or review any of the evidence.

annalia
08-06-2011, 09:36 PM
Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

Of course it's about winning at all costs, especially in a high profile case where defense attorneys such as Baez want to make a name for themselves. Look at attorneys who jump into high profile cases. You think if no one ever heard of CA, lawyers like Mason, or Baden or any other DA who attached themselves to her case would care about her or represent her pro bono if she was just some unwed mother from nowhere?

How many times is it said that all a DA has to do is present reasonable doubt, they never say it should be the truth, just confuse a jury and they win. It's all a game.

Caligram
08-06-2011, 09:37 PM
If she didn't bond with Caylee, she still knew right from wrong. If she was sexually abused, ( which I don't believe she was ) she still knew right from wrong. If she came from a dysfunctional family, she still knew right from wrong. She wasn't mentally impaired. her mother was controlling and overbearing, her father a wimp, we haven't seen anything else that indicates she was in dire circumstances growing up.

How many excuses can be made for this woman?

The prisons are full of people who came from dysfunctional families, much worse than the Anthony's, people in prison who never had a chance at a normal life as a child, people who were sexually, physically and mentally abused, mothers who never bonded with their children, all convicted of crimes because they knew right from wrong.

Maybe they should all just be set free. Never convict anyone of anything again.

On the other hand there are people all over the world who have been abused, emotionally and physically, that go on to live productive lives.

CA ain't special.

JMHO

BBM....I agree. She's not special, but her family treated her as if she was more than special. FCA did not fear either CA or GA. No way was she sexually abused. As to physical abuse, my belief is that CA should have not let go during that fight on 6/15.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 09:42 PM
I read on another thread not to read this one now i know why.uggghhhhh. There have to be some of the Pinellas 12 on here.Wished i was on the jury i would have made them go over the evidence...That is all before i post something that will get me a timeout.......:banghead::banghead::banghead::bangh ead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I had the same thought about the Pinellas 12. :p
Think about this Kimpage, the jurors have to live with their decision the rest of their lives. They don't want to do interviews, don't want their names released, some even moved to other cities to escape the media and the general public.

Making a quick decision about a child's murderer (mo)--not a good thing.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 09:50 PM
BBM....I agree. She's not special, but her family treated her as if she was more than special. FCA did not fear either CA or GA. No way was she sexually abused. As to physical abuse, my belief is that CA should have not let go during that fight on 6/15.
:toastred::aktion:

LCoastMom
08-06-2011, 09:50 PM
(respectfully snipped :seeya:)

LCoastM,
300 pieces of evidence that was ignored. Another thing that gave me great pause was the fact that during deliberations- not one time-NOT ONCE-did the jurors ask to reevaluate, reread or review any of the evidence.

It defies logic, doesn't it???

kelian36
08-06-2011, 09:51 PM
It defies logic, doesn't it???

Yes'm it sure does.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 09:55 PM
Regarding the adipocere and the the other decomposition related forensics . . .

They may have failed, in themselves, to be conclusive. I more or less agree with that.

Take out the adipocere and decay chemicals by themselves. Isolate them from the historical context of the "death smell" identified by Cindy, George, the tow yard guy, Lee, Casey herself, the cadaver dogs, and a handful of other people (including at least one expert witness who noted an odor of decay after the lining had been in police custody for two years) . . .

Whether that greasy stuff was adipocere or not does not render witness testimony meaningless.

It's like saying an apple is not conclusively an apple because the apple genome is incomplete or only mitochondrial. I'm gonna look at the apple, wash it off and eat it while you (the generic you) are still running forensics.

I'm gonna eat it because I am considering the entire BODY of evidence, not just the genome.
...and the dog hits?

RR0004
08-06-2011, 09:56 PM
I had the same thought about the Pinellas 12. :p
Think about this Kimpage, the jurors have to live with their decision the rest of their lives. They don't want to do interviews, don't want their names released, some even moved to other cities to escape the media and the general public.

Making a quick decision about a child's murderer (mo)--not a good thing.
They should stay hidden IMO.
Be ashamed...very ashamed.

askfornina
08-06-2011, 10:02 PM
I'd like to see someone who agrees with the verdict mention Caylee's name and to tell me how it feels that justice for this little girl wasn't served.
Just a random thought.

it feels terrible. i resent the implication here that because one agrees with the verdict, one must not care about caylee. i read the caylee memorial thread and cried just today. it sickens me to think that if casey did murder her, she is not being punished. but i recognize that the prosecution didn't meet the burden. you obviously do not agree. that will not change. i don't know what happened to caylee. i don't feel like arguing it anymore. but it is really sickening that someone would think that because i agree with the verdict, i must not care about justice for caylee. i have cried for caylee. i wish there was more evidence, but i can recognize there wasn't. a court of law isn't about the victim. i can separate myself from justice for caylee and justice in a court of law. if this somehow makes me emotionless, mean, uncaring, evil, any such thing in anyones eyes..so be it i guess.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 10:02 PM
Agree. It's not like he would be willing to consider the possibility that the jury screwed up the deliberation process or that there is now a probable murderer free to commit murder again ( and we keep hearing that Casey needs protection! ).
No,anytime a defense wins a case ,even if a criminal walks free,AD will celebrate the WIN. Unfortunately it's the victims and the public who lose.
Yup...and look where his famous client is now.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 10:04 PM
it feels terrible. i resent the implication here that because one agrees with the verdict, one must not care about caylee. i read the caylee memorial thread and cried just today. it sickens me to think that if casey did murder her, she is not being punished. but i recognize that the prosecution didn't meet the burden. you obviously do not agree. that will not change. i don't know what happened to caylee. i don't feel like arguing it anymore. but it is really sickening that someone would think that because i agree with the verdict, i must not care about justice for caylee. i have cried for caylee. i wish there was more evidence, but i can recognize there wasn't. a court of law isn't about the victim. i can separate myself from justice for caylee and justice in a court of law. if this somehow makes me emotionless, mean, uncaring, evil, any such thing in anyones eyes..so be it i guess.
No implication...just haven't seen it. To be honest...I had no idea what your opinion was. I just have not seen Caylee's name mentioned by those who support the verdict. As I said...random thought. Sorry if you took it personally.

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 10:06 PM
I'd like to see someone who agrees with the verdict mention Caylee's name and to tell me how it feels that justice for this little girl wasn't served.
Just a random thought.

They'd blame it on the prosecution or the devious politics that interfered with due process.

See, it's the state's fault that they did not PROVE with appropriate forensic evidence that a dead Caylee was decomposing in her mother's trunk :(

Since these bits of evidence were failures, therefore, all the people and dogs and Casey herself who smelled the smell were thrown out with the bathwater. Or something like that. I still wish I could understand how in the heck this happened :banghead:

Caligram
08-06-2011, 10:09 PM
Wonder what happened to the juror's notebooks. Guess they didn't take any notes on any evidence they wished to re-evaluate during their non-deliberation stage. It was all perfectly clear when they were done listening to the DT.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 10:11 PM
They should stay hidden IMO.
Be ashamed...very ashamed.

I agree.....

RR0004
08-06-2011, 10:12 PM
BBM....I agree. She's not special, but her family treated her as if she was more than special. FCA did not fear either CA or GA. No way was she sexually abused. As to physical abuse, my belief is that CA should have not let go during that fight on 6/15.
Which reminds me of what JA said about not bringing up the "alleged" fight...that Cindy would deny it. I also thought that the attorneys couldn't stray too far from the depos. Was the pet burial stuff ever brought up with LA in his depo? If not, why was his testimony allowed?
BTW...anyone know if Lee has gotten a job?

Pattymarie
08-06-2011, 10:16 PM
For the LE, SA and those of us who still have good old-fashioned morals, KC's lying was the biggest tell in this case. Even with all the other amazing evidence the LE were able to gather in this "dry bones" case, KC's lying was astounding and proof of guilt.

However, the DT were very clever to take this worst part of KC and turn into nothing by using psychobabble.

I wish the SA would have seen this coming and adjusted their case accordingly.

Unfortunately, they did not, believing that the jury, supposedly formed of good, hard-working, decent Americans would also see that the astonishing lies would point to consciousness of guilt.

askfornina
08-06-2011, 10:17 PM
No implication...just haven't seen it. To be honest...I had no idea what your opinion was. I just have not seen Caylee's name mentioned by those who support the verdict. As I said...random thought. Sorry if you took it personally.

wasn't really directing my post toward you in particular though it may have seemed that way, but rather toward the idea i stated in general. i have seen that general idea posted numerous times on this forum so i wanted to get my opinion on the matter out there.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 10:17 PM
Wonder what happened to the juror's notebooks. Guess they didn't take any notes on any evidence they wished to re-evaluate during their non-deliberation stage. It was all perfectly clear when they were done listening to the DT.

Sadly, I'm beginning to believe that when JBaez gave the DT's OS, the jurors made up their minds right then and there, that FCA was a sexual abuse victim so she couldn't be guilty of murder.

Honestly the longer I think about it I'm simply God-smacked that HHJPerry allowed JB to open with such unfounded, misaligned, made up bs.

PeteyGirl
08-06-2011, 10:18 PM
it feels terrible. i resent the implication here that because one agrees with the verdict, one must not care about caylee. i read the caylee memorial thread and cried just today. it sickens me to think that if casey did murder her, she is not being punished. but i recognize that the prosecution didn't meet the burden. you obviously do not agree. that will not change. i don't know what happened to caylee. i don't feel like arguing it anymore. but it is really sickening that someone would think that because i agree with the verdict, i must not care about justice for caylee. i have cried for caylee. i wish there was more evidence, but i can recognize there wasn't. a court of law isn't about the victim. i can separate myself from justice for caylee and justice in a court of law. if this somehow makes me emotionless, mean, uncaring, evil, any such thing in anyones eyes..so be it i guess.

I understand where you are coming from, agreeing with the verdict has nothing to do with grief at the death of a beautiful child.

The opportunity for justice for Caylee is out of everyone's hands now, unless Karma has hands.

Re: the BBM; like I said to RR0004, the pro-verdict people will likely blame the prosecution for the lack of justice. The anti-verdict people tend to blame the jury. In the end, it was the jury's decision, they are the final culpable party. The state had an obligation to present adequate evidence, and the defense to counter it. The jury had the obligation to decide guilt, and they chose to disregard all of the evidence because SOME of the evidence was doubtful.

kelian36
08-06-2011, 10:21 PM
For the LE, SA and those of us who still have good old-fashioned morals, KC's lying was the biggest tell in this case. Even with all the other amazing evidence the LE were able to gather in this "dry bones" case, KC's lying was astounding and proof of guilt.

However, the DT were very clever to take this worst part of KC and turn into nothing by using psychobabble.

I wish the SA would have seen this coming and adjusted their case accordingly.

Unfortunately, they did not, believing that the jury, supposedly formed of good, hard-working, decent Americans would also see that the astonishing lies would point to consciousness of guilt.

That's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Patty.
bbm-color by me for emphasis

RANCH
08-06-2011, 10:27 PM
They'd blame it on the prosecution or the devious politics that interfered with due process.

See, it's the state's fault that they did not PROVE with appropriate forensic evidence that a dead Caylee was decomposing in her mother's trunk :(

Since these bits of evidence were failures, therefore, all the people and dogs and Casey herself who smelled the smell were thrown out with the bathwater. Or something like that. I still wish I could understand how in the heck this happened :banghead:

Thanks for a good post. What I keep seeing from people is the term "we don't know what happened".I believe this to mean that there was no eyewitness testimony of Caylees death. Apparently all other evidence is useless in determining guilt. Maybe I'm reading people wrong, but that's what I see from some of the pro verdict post's.MOO.

thedeviledadvocate
08-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Opinion is all about the person having it. Facts stand alone, and you can opine about them until the cows come home and facts will remain exactly the same.

You suggest that my part in this discussion is based upon my opinion, and that is only partly true. I (hope I have) qualified when I do give an opinion. Otherwise, I am doing my best to stick to the known facts.

With due respect, I wouldn't even bother having this discussion with anyone who is just composing opinions. I mean, how uninteresting. You personally are very interesting, don't get me wrong. My point is, opinions are like hind ends, everyone has one, has the right to have however many they can come up with and it's very intrusive and controlling of me to change something as deeply personal as YOUR OPINION.

It seems to me that it is ducking responsibility, for one's own words, to qualify ALL of them with "my opinion only". What a way to avoid taking responsibility. I think the mods have made this issue clear, for instance, calling FCA a murderer after she's been acquitted is disrespectful of the justice system, we are very respectful of it around here, and ought to be qualified with "IMO".

A person who is working with the facts and evidence of the Anthony case, drawing conclusions and making statements is involving themselves in a much deeper way than "JMO".

Unless, I suppose, a person equates having an opinion with having a belief. That is confusion.

I for one have beliefs about what happened to Caylee, and I derived those beliefs (not opinions) from examining the evidence. I am discussing my beliefs here (with some opinions now and then, of course), and I thought I was discussing your beliefs with you.

If it turns out all I am discussing is your opinions, then . . . well, two things. One, your opinions sure come across as beliefs and have fooled me. You have spent a lot of time here discussing your opinions as if they were based on the facts and evidence of the case. You've spent a lot of effort positing your opinions as statements that define some of the realities around this case.

Two, you have every right to your opinions and I have NO right to get in there and challenge them. I don't like to cross people's boundaries like that. I'm sad though because you are a great sparring partner :D

I do enjoy sparring with you as well. I was under the impression that when a statement of fact was made, it had to be followed with a link. Whereas by stating it is my opinion, a link is not needed because it is simply an opinion. Prior to the trial, even when I stated facts, and showed the links proving the facts, I just had gotten in the habit of saying my entire post is my opinion only. Why did I get in this habit, to keep out of trouble LOL.

As for opinions and beliefs. One definition of opinion is: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. This definition seems to have opinion and belief being one in the same. Another definition of opinion is: a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Again belief and opinion seem to be one in the same. For fun one definition of belief is : something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction, and yet again both seem to be one in the same.
I do understand what you are saying though, and yes it is a cop out for me to put the disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts, but I don't like getting timeouts LOL.

In my post #360, the word belief could replace the word opinion, and it would not change the message I was trying to convey. That being based on the definitions above.

And so, following are some of my beliefs, that i have also derived from examining the evidence.

I believe Caylee died tragically and accidently. I believe KC was likely responsible for this tragedy through negligence (i.e. she was on the computer while Caylee slipped outside and drowned in the pool). I believe KC's actions upon finding her daughter dead were off the charts wrong. She should have called 911 period. I believe her behavior for the 31 days following the death was more indicative of a person in absolute denial of what had happened, than the actions of someone who had murdered her daughter and was trying to get away with it. I believe someone who had murdered their daughter and was trying to get away with it would NOT have placed her daughter in a wooded area less than a half mile from her home less than 20 feet from the road. What murderer in their right mind would do that (if indeed a murderer can have a right mind). Who in their right mind would drive around with a dead baby in the trunk of their car for 3 days? I believe a mother who had a mental break from reality after finding her daughter dead, during that mental break may have mindlessly wrapped her daughter the way her parents had wrapped the families dead pets, and placed her in the woods. Then in absolute denial of what had happened, went to her boyfriends house and acted like nothing had happened, because in her mind, nothing had happened. I believe the state overcharged KC with the first 3 counts. I believe the state did not present enough proof BARD to get a conviction on the first 3 counts. That is why I agree with the verdict.

RR0004
08-06-2011, 10:38 PM
I understand where you are coming from, agreeing with the verdict has nothing to do with grief at the death of a beautiful child.

The opportunity for justice for Caylee is out of everyone's hands now, unless Karma has hands.

Re: the BBM; like I said to RR0004, the pro-verdict people will likely blame the prosecution for the lack of justice. The anti-verdict people tend to blame the jury. In the end, it was the jury's decision, they are the final culpable party. The state had an obligation to present adequate evidence, and the defense to counter it. The jury had the obligation to decide guilt, and they chose to disregard all of the evidence because SOME of the evidence was doubtful.
Oh, karma is always at work. I'm patient.

logicalgirl
08-06-2011, 10:42 PM
They should stay hidden IMO.
Be ashamed...very ashamed.

Huh - ashamed and branded for life is what they are, whether they like it or not. Their names will eventually become public, and people will still care....

LCoastMom
08-06-2011, 10:50 PM
Wonder what happened to the juror's notebooks. Guess they didn't take any notes on any evidence they wished to re-evaluate during their non-deliberation stage. It was all perfectly clear when they were done listening to the DT.

Now that's something I might pay money to read...do the notebooks reveal the journey to the verdict or are they just notes scribbled in the margins -

Watched jail vid today -
defendant seemed very
believable while standing
up to her abuser!

Defendant called home -
said everyone wants Caylee
back - that's all she wants
too!!!

Orlando has coyotes!

Crazy meter reader likes duct tape!!

Hmmm what movies are we watching tonight????

Ewwww SA said Pigs in a blanket!!!

RR0004
08-06-2011, 10:56 PM
I do enjoy sparring with you as well. I was under the impression that when a statement of fact was made, it had to be followed with a link. Whereas by stating it is my opinion, a link is not needed because it is simply an opinion. Prior to the trial, even when I stated facts, and showed the links proving the facts, I just had gotten in the habit of saying my entire post is my opinion only. Why did I get in this habit, to keep out of trouble LOL.

As for opinions and beliefs. One definition of opinion is: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. This definition seems to have opinion and belief being one in the same. Another definition of opinion is: a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Again belief and opinion seem to be one in the same. For fun one definition of belief is : something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction, and yet again both seem to be one in the same.
I do understand what you are saying though, and yes it is a cop out for me to put the disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts, but I don't like getting timeouts LOL.

In my post #360, the word belief could replace the word opinion, and it would not change the message I was trying to convey. That being based on the definitions above.

And so, following are some of my beliefs, that i have also derived from examining the evidence.

I believe Caylee died tragically and accidently. I believe KC was likely responsible for this tragedy through negligence (i.e. she was on the computer while Caylee slipped outside and drowned in the pool). I believe KC's actions upon finding her daughter dead were off the charts wrong. She should have called 911 period. I believe her behavior for the 31 days following the death was more indicative of a person in absolute denial of what had happened, than the actions of someone who had murdered her daughter and was trying to get away with it. I believe someone who had murdered their daughter and was trying to get away with it would NOT have placed her daughter in a wooded area less than a half mile from her home less than 20 feet from the road. What murderer in their right mind would do that (if indeed a murderer can have a right mind). Who in their right mind would drive around with a dead baby in the trunk of their car for 3 days? I believe a mother who had a mental break from reality after finding her daughter dead, during that mental break may have mindlessly wrapped her daughter the way her parents had wrapped the families dead pets, and placed her in the woods. Then in absolute denial of what had happened, went to her boyfriends house and acted like nothing had happened, because in her mind, nothing had happened. I believe the state overcharged KC with the first 3 counts. I believe the state did not present enough proof BARD to get a conviction on the first 3 counts. That is why I agree with the verdict.
Just curious...believing what you do in theory...why didn't the defense present that? I realize an OS isn't evidence, but that's not what the defense team claimed. In fact, early on, the DT claimed that Caylee was alive and their main concern was finding her. So are we to assume that Casey finally told the truth...or some part of it? Do we know if she received any psychoanalysis while in jail?
I don't see her having a mental break...she lied just as much prior to Caylee dying. Lying is what Casey did/does.

Findntruth
08-07-2011, 01:03 AM
Yes...we believe that the verdict was correct in saying NOT GUILTY...we feel that the jurors did an excellent job in their review of the case...the jury foreman being a coach and educator in his everyday life was very informative in explaining to Greta how they came to the conclusion of every bit of evidence that they looked at...

And it was interesting to note that the jury wanted to know the same thing as we were wanting to know...and that was to hear more information about what George Anthony was doing in the home that morning...

RR0004
08-07-2011, 01:08 AM
Yes...we believe that the verdict was correct in saying NOT GUILTY...we feel that the jurors did an excellent job in their review of the case...the jury foreman being a coach and educator in his everyday life was very informative in explaining to Greta how they came to the conclusion of every bit of evidence that they looked at...

And it was interesting to note that the jury wanted to know the same thing as we were wanting to know...and that was to hear more information about what George Anthony was doing in the home that morning...
Ah...the question is "Do you agree or disagree? Who the heck is "we"?

Findntruth
08-07-2011, 01:14 AM
There are several of us in the same family...we converse together about this case...

LCoastMom
08-07-2011, 01:20 AM
Yes...we believe that the verdict was correct in saying NOT GUILTY...we feel that the jurors did an excellent job in their review of the case...the jury foreman being a coach and educator in his everyday life was very informative in explaining to Greta how they came to the conclusion of every bit of evidence that they looked at...

And it was interesting to note that the jury wanted to know the same thing as we were wanting to know...and that was to hear more information about what George Anthony was doing in the home that morning...

Ummm what evidence did they look at? And what difference does it make what GA was doing in the house on 6/16 (even though the foreman kept saying 6/15)? GA was not on trial!

RR0004
08-07-2011, 01:24 AM
There are several of us in the same family...we converse together about this case...
Sorry, I must have missed that post. Thanks for clearing that up.

TexanMom
08-07-2011, 01:25 AM
Ummm what evidence did they look at? And what difference does it make what GA was doing in the house on 6/16 (even though the foreman kept saying 6/15)? GA was not on trial!

The only thing the jury considered as "evidence" was the DT opening statement! Which they were told by HHJP not to use as evidence! I do not think the collective brain power of that jury could light a 4 watt bulb!

imagirlgeek
08-07-2011, 01:49 AM
I'm starting to wonder if the difficulty some of the pro-verdict people are having is more to do with the inability to reconcile WHY KC behaved the way she did. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. If you can't reconcile that she 'could' have done it, then the evidence is going to be easier to throw out or poke holes in. It's easier to accept that it was an accident and she just went into a state of shock and denial than to believe she could kill her daughter and feel nothing.

But you know, I never saw KC show remorse for anything. In all those jail videos, and interviews, and voice recordings, she never showed any indication that she was ever sorry about anything. And you can argue that she didn't have anything to be sorry for because she didn't do anything, but she did PLENTY. She showed no remorse for what happened to Caylee, no remorse for what her parents were going through, no remorse for any of the lies to anyone. What I saw was a woman who manipulated her way through everything. When she got backed against a wall, she just turned left and kept moving.

Sure, there were moments when she cried, or appeared to cry, but I wonder if she was crying for herself more than anything else. And I don't know about you guys, but when I cry my lips get puffy, my nose gets red and snotty, and my eyes get both red and puffy. I just didn't see any of that when KC appeared to get upset.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I would expect someone who was at the center of that big of a mess that she created, would have, at some point said I'm Sorry. You know? "Mom, I'm sorry I lied to you about where Caylee was, I was scared." "Dad, I'm sorry I took the gas cans, I should have told you I took them." Just something. But instead, when she was asked ANYTHING, she lashed out. Or she just created a new lie.

I think she was absolutely capable of killing Caylee, driving around for a few days with her in the trunk, and dumping her in the woods. I don't think this in spite of how she behaved before and after. I think this because of how she behaved before and after. There was no difference in how she was before. No difference. She just carried on and avoided the people who would question where Caylee was. That isn't shock and denial. That's a complete and total lack of feeling.

I had to have one of my cats put to sleep recently. I stayed with him during the procedure, then I brought him home and buried him in the yard. I was a freakin' wreck! Anytime I think about it too hard, I get a lump in my throat. FOR MY CAT. So I can't reconcile how she didn't feel anything for her daughter.

Disclaimer: This post is not directed at anyone in particular. It's just something I picked up on after reading a few thousand posts over the last few weeks. :crazy:

And, as always, this is all just my personal opinion/observation.

PeteyGirl
08-07-2011, 03:10 AM
I do enjoy sparring with you as well. I was under the impression that when a statement of fact was made, it had to be followed with a link. Whereas by stating it is my opinion, a link is not needed because it is simply an opinion. Prior to the trial, even when I stated facts, and showed the links proving the facts, I just had gotten in the habit of saying my entire post is my opinion only. Why did I get in this habit, to keep out of trouble LOL.

I understand. We're discussing facts "after the fact", which have been linked to already, discussed ad nauseum with assumed veracity. In this place, an unlinked factoid gets linked or disputed right away.

So breaking news that hasn't been revealed, yes, I agree should be linked. But it gets absurd and pedantic to "IMO" everything you come up with to share here, it would be a job to make a beaurocrat break out into a sweat :D


As for opinions and beliefs. One definition of opinion is: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. This definition seems to have opinion and belief being one in the same. Another definition of opinion is: a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. Again belief and opinion seem to be one in the same. For fun one definition of belief is : something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction, and yet again both seem to be one in the same.
I do understand what you are saying though, and yes it is a cop out for me to put the disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts, but I don't like getting timeouts LOL.

In my post #360, the word belief could replace the word opinion, and it would not change the message I was trying to convey. That being based on the definitions above.

I hear you, semantics then. To me, my opinion is not necessarily true, it's a description of where my understanding is at. I never know everything. A belief is based upon objective knowledge. I believe it because it has been proven to my satisfaction (and this always includes the satisfaction of a reasonable amount of other people).

And so, following are some of my beliefs, that i have also derived from examining the evidence.

I believe Caylee died tragically and accidently. I believe KC was likely responsible for this tragedy through negligence (i.e. she was on the computer while Caylee slipped outside and drowned in the pool). I believe KC's actions upon finding her daughter dead were off the charts wrong. She should have called 911 period.

This is SPECULATION, not based upon any positive knowledge. No one knows how Caylee died. It was not the state's job to show how Caylee died. If anyone's, it was the defense's job and they did not provide ANY supportive evidence. Apparently, the did not need to :crazy: people are makin' it up all on their own.



I believe her behavior for the 31 days following the death was more indicative of a person in absolute denial of what had happened, than the actions of someone who had murdered her daughter and was trying to get away with it.

Again, based upon what evidence presented in court? Speculation.

If murder or negligent homicide were your conclusion, that would not be speculation, because at least there were reasonable (in this case, redundant) supportive evidence.

I believe someone who had murdered their daughter and was trying to get away with it would NOT have placed her daughter in a wooded area less than a half mile from her home less than 20 feet from the road. What murderer in their right mind would do that (if indeed a murderer can have a right mind). Who in their right mind would drive around with a dead baby in the trunk of their car for 3 days?

Incredibly bizarre, yes. But take a look at how bodies are discarded by mothers who murder. Most of the time they don't even take the kid out of the house, or they put them in the closet in a tote. Even mothers who murder in cold blood wrap their babies in blankets before disposing of them.

Why would Casey drive around with a dead baby in the trunk of her car for 3 days? She fancied finding the perfect hiding place? She had a few molecules of motherly instinct and could not bear to dispose of her daughter's body until the smell of decay almost knocked her out? The car was the one "space" she had absolute control over? I can think of a lot of reasons. Just because it is too bizarre and evil for words does not mean it didn't happen that way :( And what with the direct stench-witnessing by so many people, including police officer(s), scientists and cadaver dog(s?), I'd say that is evidence enough to say for whatever unspeakable reason, the baby was dead and decomposing in that car :(

I believe a mother who had a mental break from reality after finding her daughter dead, during that mental break may have mindlessly wrapped her daughter the way her parents had wrapped the families dead pets, and placed her in the woods. Then in absolute denial of what had happened, went to her boyfriends house and acted like nothing had happened, because in her mind, nothing had happened. I believe the state overcharged KC with the first 3 counts. I believe the state did not present enough proof BARD to get a conviction on the first 3 counts. That is why I agree with the verdict.

That is all an alternate explanation -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Consciousness of guilt is one, the blatant lies another. Some would say the absence of visible grief is more evidence to the contrary.

I'm an old psych RN, and worked with a few forensically hospitalized patients over 17 years. I also read psychology books for fun. I'll tell you one thing . . . for a mother to go into that kind of absolute denial and NOT have a major mental illness (as stated by the six shrinks who examined her) is just not possible on Planet Earth. No, there is not a first time for everything lol.

A more evidence based explanation is simply that Casey DID NOT CARE. Now that's hard for us to stomach, it is a thought that brings despair to anyone who thinks it.

If Casey is not mentally ill, psychotic and unable to organize her experience with consensual reality, then her behavior during those 31 days (and thereafter) are much better explained by her not giving a &%*! what happened to her daughter. And no, people do not have brief psychotic episodes without remembering them once restored to sanity. Fugue states are extremely rare, and those conditions would have showed up in a thorough forensic psych eval.

It just doesn't hold any water, and speaking for myself, I just won't accept speculation as a reason to agree with a verdict. This is a thread where we are given leeway to debate, otherwise I'd just ignore this kind of stuff. Plus I think we can all learn something good for ourselves, both reading the posts and participating and sharing. So I write all this with respect for you as a person, TDA, separate from me disagreeing with your position.

Tugela
08-07-2011, 05:25 AM
This is SPECULATION, not based upon any positive knowledge. No one knows how Caylee died. It was not the state's job to show how Caylee died. If anyone's, it was the defense's job and they did not provide ANY supportive evidence. Apparently, the did not need to :crazy: people are makin' it up all on their own.

Again, based upon what evidence presented in court? Speculation.

If murder or negligent homicide were your conclusion, that would not be speculation, because at least there were reasonable (in this case, redundant) supportive evidence.



Incredibly bizarre, yes. But take a look at how bodies are discarded by mothers who murder. Most of the time they don't even take the kid out of the house, or they put them in the closet in a tote. Even mothers who murder in cold blood wrap their babies in blankets before disposing of them.

Why would Casey drive around with a dead baby in the trunk of her car for 3 days? She fancied finding the perfect hiding place? She had a few molecules of motherly instinct and could not bear to dispose of her daughter's body until the smell of decay almost knocked her out? The car was the one "space" she had absolute control over? I can think of a lot of reasons. Just because it is too bizarre and evil for words does not mean it didn't happen that way :( And what with the direct stench-witnessing by so many people, including police officer(s), scientists and cadaver dog(s?), I'd say that is evidence enough to say for whatever unspeakable reason, the baby was dead and decomposing in that car :(



That is all an alternate explanation -- in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Consciousness of guilt is one, the blatant lies another. Some would say the absence of visible grief is more evidence to the contrary.

I'm an old psych RN, and worked with a few forensically hospitalized patients over 17 years. I also read psychology books for fun. I'll tell you one thing . . . for a mother to go into that kind of absolute denial and NOT have a major mental illness (as stated by the six shrinks who examined her) is just not possible on Planet Earth. No, there is not a first time for everything lol.

A more evidence based explanation is simply that Casey DID NOT CARE. Now that's hard for us to stomach, it is a thought that brings despair to anyone who thinks it.

If Casey is not mentally ill, psychotic and unable to organize her experience with consensual reality, then her behavior during those 31 days (and thereafter) are much better explained by her not giving a &%*! what happened to her daughter. And no, people do not have brief psychotic episodes without remembering them once restored to sanity. Fugue states are extremely rare, and those conditions would have showed up in a thorough forensic psych eval.

It just doesn't hold any water, and speaking for myself, I just won't accept speculation as a reason to agree with a verdict. This is a thread where we are given leeway to debate, otherwise I'd just ignore this kind of stuff. Plus I think we can all learn something good for ourselves, both reading the posts and participating and sharing. So I write all this with respect for you as a person, TDA, separate from me disagreeing with your position.

Actually, it IS the state's job to show how she died if they are charging capital murder and put forward a theory as to how it happened. The problem was that their theory was complete speculation, there were no facts to support it. The facts that they did provide had other obvious and more plausible explanations.

Btw, the theory put forward by the defence, that Caylee fell into, and drowned in the swimming pool, provides a better explanation for how chlorinated agents may have ended up in the trunk. The only way for that to have happened is for the person to have been doused in chlorinated agents, such that their clothes were soaked. Falling into a Floridian swimming pool seems a pretty good way to achieve that to me. There is no other way to get enough to accumulate in the car. If you were going to knock someone out with chloroform that simply would not have happened.

The prosecution also didn't prove that KA drove around with the body in the car for three days, or that a body was even in the car for that matter. All they showed was that something had decomposed there at some point, but that could be just about anything. So the question to the jury would have been was that Caylee? And if so, who put her there and when? Obviously the jury didn't have answers to those questions beyond the prosecutions speculation. This is why actual evidence that corroborates the theory they are presenting is important.

Lastly, if KA does have this severe mental illness you suggest, then the alternative explanation for the evidence would still be consistent with the facts as presented. Because you wouldn't act the way she did doesn't mean that she is guilty of murder. Everyone reacts to a particular situation in different ways, and if someone happens to be mentally ill then they may react in a way very different from how you might react. Her lack of emotion may simply reflect how she is, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

lauriej
08-07-2011, 05:35 AM
Wonder what happened to the juror's notebooks. Guess they didn't take any notes on any evidence they wished to re-evaluate during their non-deliberation stage. It was all perfectly clear when they were done listening to the DT.

--from a news article july 6th..

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28464092/detail.html
---snipped----

Her attorneys filed a notice for deposition for 10 a.m. on July 19 at Morgan's office. The notice indicated the deposition could take several days.
When Morgan took depositions from Anthony's parents, he posted the complete videos online.

After Anthony was served with the subpoena, she was visited by three members of her defense team, as well as her attorney for the civil case.

Judge Belvin Perry issued an order Wednesday afternoon that he had personally burned all of the jurors' notes Wednesday morning.

Sustained
08-07-2011, 09:30 AM
Actually, it IS the state's job to show how she died if they are charging capital murder and put forward a theory as to how it happened. The problem was that their theory was complete speculation, there were no facts to support it. The facts that they did provide had other obvious and more plausible explanations.

In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is not necessary to prove the "how", only that the victim died and the intent to kill was present. Do we know how Laci Petersen died ? Nope, afraid not, due to the state of decomposition of the body. Just like Caylee ...

Btw, the theory put forward by the defence, that Caylee fell into, and drowned in the swimming pool, provides a better explanation for how chlorinated agents may have ended up in the trunk. The only way for that to have happened is for the person to have been doused in chlorinated agents, such that their clothes were soaked. Falling into a Floridian swimming pool seems a pretty good way to achieve that to me. There is no other way to get enough to accumulate in the car. If you were going to knock someone out with chloroform that simply would not have happened.

Really ? How would you know ? Have you knocked someone out with chloroform and put them in a trunk ? How do you know FCA didn't tip over the bottle of chloroform in the trunk ? Chloroform & chlorinating agents are two different things. People call 911 when a child falls into a swimming pool. Why didn't the "great" mom call 911 ?

The prosecution also didn't prove that KA drove around with the body in the car for three days, or that a body was even in the car for that matter. All they showed was that something had decomposed there at some point, but that could be just about anything. So the question to the jury would have been was that Caylee? And if so, who put her there and when? Obviously the jury didn't have answers to those questions beyond the prosecutions speculation. This is why actual evidence that corroborates the theory they are presenting is important.

Whether it was 3, 4, or 6 days is irrelevant. Disputing the fact that Caylee was in the trunk ignores ALL of the testimony by the cadaver dog handlers, GA, LA, YM, SB, AV, NH, KL, etc. Are you telling me that all of these witnesses are wrong ? As far as who put her there ... who had sole access to the Sunfire from 6/16 to 6/27 ? Who displayed the consciousness of guilt that comes with doing something that one wants to hide ? Why would anyone hide a drowning ? The jury did not have the answers to those questions because they expected a video tape showing FCA putting Caylee in the trunk of the car.

Lastly, if KA does have this severe mental illness you suggest, then the alternative explanation for the evidence would still be consistent with the facts as presented. Because you wouldn't act the way she did doesn't mean that she is guilty of murder. Everyone reacts to a particular situation in different ways, and if someone happens to be mentally ill then they may react in a way very different from how you might react. Her lack of emotion may simply reflect how she is, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Show me another case where a child drowned in a swimming pool and the child's mother lied to police, partied for 31 days, got a Bella Vita tattoo, showed zero emotion when speaking of her child, was only concerned with herself and getting out of jail, etc. I'll be available all day today if you happen to find one ....


Your post sounds exactly like I would expect one of the jurors to respond if asked what lead them to their decision ...

logicalgirl
08-07-2011, 10:40 AM
I see we are once again moving from opinions to arguing that irrefutable facts regarding the evidence in this case have become fairy tales. I sincerely wish the posters who are here now arguing that what's real isn't really real had been able to join us two years ago.

It would have been great to have these arguments back when it really mattered . No point arguing when it is what it is. Saying it isn't won't make it true, no matter who or how folks want to justify the NG verdict.

To argue against the evidence, saying it wasn't real makes about sense as me saying that wasn't really a Not Guilty verdict - it was just pretend and the real verdict is coming down the pike any time now.

As Judge Belvin Perry said at the latest hearing - Anything that could go wrong in this case did go wrong.

Casey Marie Anthony spoke the truth at one point only - when she said she was the best liar - she killed her own daughter and got a get out of jail free card. She wanted to be famous - and she almost got that - she will be forever infamous.

As will Mr. Baez. He is now the go-to guy for anyone who is guilty and wants to get away with it. Nice career ya got there Mr. Baez.

All IMO of course. Mine and most of the best legal minds in the country that is.

RANCH
08-07-2011, 11:22 AM
Btw, the theory put forward by the defence, that Caylee fell into, and drowned in the swimming pool, provides a better explanation for how chlorinated agents may have ended up in the trunk. The only way for that to have happened is for the person to have been doused in chlorinated agents, such that their clothes were soaked. Falling into a Floridian swimming pool seems a pretty good way to achieve that to me. There is no other way to get enough to accumulate in the car. If you were going to knock someone out with chloroform that simply would not have happened.



I believe the Anthonys used the Baquacil system in their pool. It's a chlorine-free system.Some bottles of it were removed from their house on the Dec 11 2008 search warrant. I haven't been able to find the actual OCSO receipt, but JWG mentioned it back in June 2009.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - All About Chloroform#2

http://www.baquacil.com/Products/baqcilSystems.htm

logicalgirl
08-07-2011, 11:24 AM
I believe the Anthonys used the Baquacil system in their pool. It's a chlorine-free system.Some bottles of it were removed from their house on the Dec 11 2008 search warrant. I haven't been able to find the actual OCSO receipt, but JWG mentioned it back in June 2009.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - All About Chloroform#2 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3897127&postcount=993)

http://www.baquacil.com/Products/baqcilSystems.htm

Yes, you are correct - and CA wasn't concerned about her dogs drinking pool water when she searched for "chloroform":floorlaugh: on the computer, it was because she thought they were chewing on plants or some such silly thing.

LambChop
08-07-2011, 11:46 AM
Yes...we believe that the verdict was correct in saying NOT GUILTY...we feel that the jurors did an excellent job in their review of the case...the jury foreman being a coach and educator in his everyday life was very informative in explaining to Greta how they came to the conclusion of every bit of evidence that they looked at...

And it was interesting to note that the jury wanted to know the same thing as we were wanting to know...and that was to hear more information about what George Anthony was doing in the home that morning...

I do think if you watch the video of KC's jail release and believe what DT is saying about KC's "safety" then the only conclusion you could come to is that many people agree that the jury "did not" do an excellent job and actions of the public has borne that out.

The foreman being a coach/educator should have known to follow the jury instructions which is the main complaint of the majority of us here on this forum. Key evidence was never deliberated and appears only real concerns were about GA. Common sense would tell you if you find the defendant guilty of lying you have to consider she could have been lying about GA to her defense team.

When defense used GA in their opening statement the burden was now on them to prove what they said in their OS was true. That never happened. Nothing was ever put before that jury with proof of what JB stated in his opening statement. Common sense would tell you to go back to square one. Who was responsible for the child....the mother.....who lied....the mother....who was better off without the child proven by her active social life of 31 days....the mother.

Jury wanted to know what GA was doing that morning....well, wouldn't KC know. Wouldn't KC have followed up with that little "story" about how GA carefully wrapped Caylee up and garbage bags and wrapped duct completely around her little body as they did with the dogs...oh, wait....the duct tape was only 7 to 9 inches long....that won't work. Or how KC was just so traumatized that she could not watch so she went in and got on the computer, did some texting and made some phone calls....oh, wait...that won't work either.

One of the last things that LDB said to the jury was to use their common sense and they could not even follow that instruction. I am amazed that this jury thought so little of this child as a victum that they spent a little more than a day and part of that time was focused on GA. That's not using your common sense. jmo

MissJames
08-07-2011, 12:21 PM
I would like to hear how ,anyone listening to the post verdict explanations by the 3 jurors, reconcile their statements of how they came to their NG verdict with actual jury instructions and the laws about what they can and cannot consider.
They DID NOT follow the judge's instructions according to the foreman and JF,juror #3.
So how can their verdict possibly be the right one if they ,themselves,explain they considered facts not in evidence? They didn't even know the charge did not mean a DP sentence,much less that they were NOT supposed to even consider the sentence.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 12:39 PM
The "fact " I simply cannot fathom,is the argument that the smell was not from Caylee's decomposition in the back of Casey's car. Beyond all the evidence that establishes decomp, the child WAS found dead. However anyone believes she may have died,I just don't get arguing she was not in the trunk.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 12:46 PM
I do think if you watch the video of KC's jail release and believe what DT is saying about KC's "safety" then the only conclusion you could come to is that many people agree that the jury "did not" do an excellent job and actions of the public has borne that out.

The foreman being a coach/educator should have known to follow the jury instructions which is the main complaint of the majority of us here on this forum. Key evidence was never deliberated and appears only real concerns were about GA. Common sense would tell you if you find the defendant guilty of lying you have to consider she could have been lying about GA to her defense team.

When defense used GA in their opening statement the burden was now on them to prove what they said in their OS was true. That never happened. Nothing was ever put before that jury with proof of what JB stated in his opening statement. Common sense would tell you to go back to square one. Who was responsible for the child....the mother.....who lied....the mother....who was better off without the child proven by her active social life of 31 days....the mother.

Jury wanted to know what GA was doing that morning....well, wouldn't KC know. Wouldn't KC have followed up with that little "story" about how GA carefully wrapped Caylee up and garbage bags and wrapped duct completely around her little body as they did with the dogs...oh, wait....the duct tape was only 7 to 9 inches long....that won't work. Or how KC was just so traumatized that she could not watch so she went in and got on the computer, did some texting and made some phone calls....oh, wait...that won't work either.

One of the last things that LDB said to the jury was to use their common sense and they could not even follow that instruction. I am amazed that this jury thought so little of this child as a victum that they spent a little more than a day and part of that time was focused on GA. That's not using your common sense. jmo

BBM
To follow up on a public outcry, 1,286,880,to date, people have signed the petition for Caylee's Law. Over 1 million signed in the first 5 days. Yes,people are outraged and believe the jury got it wrong. It seems from the responses of the State Lawmakers that they also believe the jury got it wrong. JMO

MissJames
08-07-2011, 12:51 PM
I believe the Anthonys used the Baquacil system in their pool. It's a chlorine-free system.Some bottles of it were removed from their house on the Dec 11 2008 search warrant. I haven't been able to find the actual OCSO receipt, but JWG mentioned it back in June 2009.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - All About Chloroform#2 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3897127&postcount=993)

http://www.baquacil.com/Products/baqcilSystems.htm

That's correct .NO chlorine in the Anthony's pool. No matter how many times that's established,we keep hearing it used as an explanation for the chloroform. The DT didn't even try to make that an issue,but it continues ,as myths often do :maddening:

MissJames
08-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Actually, it IS the state's job to show how she died if they are charging capital murder and put forward a theory as to how it happened. The problem was that their theory was complete speculation, there were no facts to support it. The facts that they did provide had other obvious and more plausible explanations.

Btw, the theory put forward by the defence, that Caylee fell into, and drowned in the swimming pool, provides a better explanation for how chlorinated agents may have ended up in the trunk. The only way for that to have happened is for the person to have been doused in chlorinated agents, such that their clothes were soaked. Falling into a Floridian swimming pool seems a pretty good way to achieve that to me. There is no other way to get enough to accumulate in the car. If you were going to knock someone out with chloroform that simply would not have happened.

The prosecution also didn't prove that KA drove around with the body in the car for three days, or that a body was even in the car for that matter. All they showed was that something had decomposed there at some point, but that could be just about anything. So the question to the jury would have been was that Caylee? And if so, who put her there and when? Obviously the jury didn't have answers to those questions beyond the prosecutions speculation. This is why actual evidence that corroborates the theory they are presenting is important.

Lastly, if KA does have this severe mental illness you suggest, then the alternative explanation for the evidence would still be consistent with the facts as presented. Because you wouldn't act the way she did doesn't mean that she is guilty of murder. Everyone reacts to a particular situation in different ways, and if someone happens to be mentally ill then they may react in a way very different from how you might react. Her lack of emotion may simply reflect how she is, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Bold and colored by me

1.) According to the law the State does NOT have to prove cause of death,no matter how much one wishes that to be so. There are often convictions ,even when a body is never found or when a body has decomposed beyond the ability to establish that fact.Many have been cited on WS.

2.) Wrong. There is NO CHLORINE in the Anthony's pool,so your reasoning is not based on the true facts. Now what ?

3.) The defense had Casey tested repeatedly and fought hard to keep the findings out of court. They went so far ,as to stop the SA's in the middle of a deposition of one of the drs and immediately withdrew both of their psychiatric expert witnesses.They then added a so-called grief expert ,who never examined Casey. Obviously there were things that the DT didn't want known about Casey's state of mind.

4.) Having lost a child suddenly and unexpectedly I will never be convinced that ANY loving mother could be so different that she could appear to be totally unaffected just hours after the child's death. Only a heartless sociopath like Casey could pull that off,IMO. The "grief expert" was not given the facts of the case before she testified.I strongly suspect she would have told the DT that Casey's behavior was indicative of a sociopath,just as I suspect the other Drs told the DT.

There were a lot of Dream Team experts that did not end up being called to the stand. Why? They could not help the defense because what they found implicated Casey.JMO.

Eidetic
08-07-2011, 01:09 PM
Her lack of emotion may simply reflect how she is, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Snipped for space by me.

Her lack of emotion towards her daughter Caylee Marie, her only child. This is why people find Casey Anthony so fundamentally loathsome. :twocents:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/foreigner/cold+as+ice_20054885.html

thedeviledadvocate
08-07-2011, 01:28 PM
I see we are once again moving from opinions to arguing that irrefutable facts regarding the evidence in this case have become fairy tales. I sincerely wish the posters who are here now arguing that what's real isn't really real had been able to join us two years ago.

It would have been great to have these arguments back when it really mattered . No point arguing when it is what it is. Saying it isn't won't make it true, no matter who or how folks want to justify the NG verdict.

To argue against the evidence, saying it wasn't real makes about sense as me saying that wasn't really a Not Guilty verdict - it was just pretend and the real verdict is coming down the pike any time now.

As Judge Belvin Perry said at the latest hearing - Anything that could go wrong in this case did go wrong.

Casey Marie Anthony spoke the truth at one point only - when she said she was the best liar - she killed her own daughter and got a get out of jail free card. She wanted to be famous - and she almost got that - she will be forever infamous.

As will Mr. Baez. He is now the go-to guy for anyone who is guilty and wants to get away with it. Nice career ya got there Mr. Baez.

All IMO of course. Mine and most of the best legal minds in the country that is.

Two years ago on this site, when it mattered to argue the evidence, I was here doing just that. I was arguing based on my interpretation of the evidence that had been released in the docs, interviews, depos etc. And then, as now, my arguments were generally dismissed as fairy tales. My arguments back then did not have the benefit of cross examination by the defense, nor did it have the benefit of the defense experts taking the stand. The cross examinations, and the defense experts validated my arguments from 2 years ago. Back then I said, if the state doesn't have anything other than what they had shown us in via the Sunshine Law, then there would be a very good chance that KC would be acquitted of the 3 main charges. To the shock and awe of about 70% of the country, that prediction came true when 12 jurors unanimously acquitted KC of the 3 main charges.

Back then, most believed I was basically full of balony, and pretty much still do LOL. Most believed I was interpreting the forensic reports incorrectly, or I wasn't factoring in this or that. Basically letting me know in no uncertain terms that I was incorrect about everything I said. Now of course, nothing has changed except, it is not only me that has interpreted the evidence wrong, that is full of balony, that did not look at all the factors, it is the DT, roughly 30% of the country, the defense experts, and of course the now nearly infamous Pinellas 12.

During the trial, the dt repeatedly asked for a mistrial, and HHBP politely denied the motion. The TH's laughed at the dt for doing this, but they knew it was because the dt has to do so for potential appeals later on. The TH's laughed, because it seemed a forgone conclusion that KC would be convicted. The TH's were convinced the PT was destroying the DT at every turn, convinced the jury was mesmerized by JA and bored to death by JB, convinced that KC's goose was as good as cooked, and the only question was whether she would get the DP or LWOP. I watched the same trial they were watching, and I was feeling dejavu all over again, because what the TH's were saying sounded very much like the responses I had been hearing to my posts for nearly 2 years. When the verdict was read, my response to verdicts 1 thru 3 was "wow", 'wow', and "wow". The decision of the only 12 people in the world that really counted in this case, had reached the same decision I had so very long ago.

Still, my theories, or interpretations, or reasoning, or thoughts, or opinions on this case are mostly considered, balony, misinformed, misinterpreted, mistaken, incorrect, wrong, and will always be considered this way by those who believe the jury got it wrong. That's ok, I am used to it, it comes with the territory of being in a minority.

The remainder of this post is all about Caylee, and how I feel about her.

Caylee was a beautiful young girl. Her smile made everyone who saw her smile, smile. Her smile was infectuous and wonderful. Her bright eyes could uplift one's spirit. When she sang, she made those who listened feel good. Watching videos of this lovely child, even though you may have never met her, made you fall in love with her. She was a typical child who became special to an entire country. Her short presence and early exit from this earth has made history, new laws in her name. Her loss has been mourned by millions. To this day, certain posters have photos of Caylee as their avatar, and these photos still bring tears to my eyes. Hers is a sad and tragic story. It is always painful when one so young is called to heaven. In my heart, I know that the moment her spirit left this earth, she was welcomed into the arms of the father, and this has brought me some solace. Caylee touched the hearts of millions, and will never be forgotten. Caylee's story has brought thousands if not millions of people together. Friendships have been formed that never would have been formed if not for Caylee. The impact Caylee has had on this country, the world, cannot be measured. What new laws that either directly or indirectly stem from Caylee's story will affect future generations of children, possibly worldwide. There are many, many good things that can be achieved in the name of Caylee, if the masses who have come to adore this child work together to improve the world, to improve the legal system, to improve the awareness of just how vulnerable, and fragile, and unequivocally precious our children are to us. Caylee is out of harms way, it is up to us to honor her memory, and work together to make the world a safer, better place for our children. Caylee's smile made everyone who saw her smile, smile. Caylee was a beautiful young girl.

NavySubMom
08-07-2011, 01:34 PM
(respectfully snipped :seeya:)

LCoastM,
300 pieces of evidence that was ignored. Another thing that gave me great pause was the fact that during deliberations- not one time-NOT ONCE-did the jurors ask to reevaluate, reread or review any of the evidence.

I think that fact bothers me the most, not one piece of evidence was requested by the jurors to look at during "deliberations", not ONE readback of ANY piece of testimony, after 6 weeks of trial. I have an incredible memory, people compliment me on it all the time, and I could not remember by any stretch certain things that were testified to. Very important real pieces of evidence. The only piece of evidence they looked at and held was the duct tape. I also recall not one, but numerous people from MSM commented many times during trial on how most of the jurors were not taking notes. IMO ONLY, I do recall the foreman was constantly taking notes, and IMO ONLY, the foreman at some point during the trial told the others something along the line (since I believe IMO he wanted to be foreman all along and be the leader so he could "orchestrate" deliberations...his wording exact there in post-trial interview, orchestrate) IMO, "don't bother about notes all of you, I will take notes for everyone", otherwise, why so few notes? I would be able to schwallow this NG verdict much easier if I thought the jurors at least "deliberated" and put some real thought into the 300+ pieces of "evidence" presented during this trial. and not deliberate on pure speculation or what or how they felt about GA. IMO, MOO, etc.

pcrum12
08-07-2011, 01:47 PM
Two years ago on this site, when it mattered to argue the evidence, I was here doing just that. I was arguing based on my interpretation of the evidence that had been released in the docs, interviews, depos etc. And then, as now, my arguments were generally dismissed as fairy tales. My arguments back then did not have the benefit of cross examination by the defense, nor did it have the benefit of the defense experts taking the stand. The cross examinations, and the defense experts validated my arguments from 2 years ago. Back then I said, if the state doesn't have anything other than what they had shown us in via the Sunshine Law, then there would be a very good chance that KC would be acquitted of the 3 main charges. To the shock and awe of about 70% of the country, that prediction came true when 12 jurors unanimously acquitted KC of the 3 main charges.

Back then, most believed I was basically full of balony, and pretty much still do LOL. Most believed I was interpreting the forensic reports incorrectly, or I wasn't factoring in this or that. Basically letting me know in no uncertain terms that I was incorrect about everything I said. Now of course, nothing has changed except, it is not only me that has interpreted the evidence wrong, that is full of balony, that did not look at all the factors, it is the DT, roughly 30% of the country, the defense experts, and of course the now nearly infamous Pinellas 12.

During the trial, the dt repeatedly asked for a mistrial, and HHBP politely denied the motion. The TH's laughed at the dt for doing this, but they knew it was because the dt has to do so for potential appeals later on. The TH's laughed, because it seemed a forgone conclusion that KC would be convicted. The TH's were convinced the PT was destroying the DT at every turn, convinced the jury was mesmerized by JA and bored to death by JB, convinced that KC's goose was as good as cooked, and the only question was whether she would get the DP or LWOP. I watched the same trial they were watching, and I was feeling dejavu all over again, because what the TH's were saying sounded very much like the responses I had been hearing to my posts for nearly 2 years. When the verdict was read, my response to verdicts 1 thru 3 was "wow", 'wow', and "wow". The decision of the only 12 people in the world that really counted in this case, had reached the same decision I had so very long ago.

Still, my theories, or interpretations, or reasoning, or thoughts, or opinions on this case are mostly considered, balony, misinformed, misinterpreted, mistaken, incorrect, wrong, and will always be considered this way by those who believe the jury got it wrong. That's ok, I am used to it, it comes with the territory of being in a minority.

The remainder of this post is all about Caylee, and how I feel about her.

Caylee was a beautiful young girl. Her smile made everyone who saw her smile, smile. Her smile was infectuous and wonderful. Her bright eyes could uplift one's spirit. When she sang, she made those who listened feel good. Watching videos of this lovely child, even though you may have never met her, made you fall in love with her. She was a typical child who became special to an entire country. Her short presence and early exit from this earth has made history, new laws in her name. Her loss has been mourned by millions. To this day, certain posters have photos of Caylee as their avatar, and these photos still bring tears to my eyes. Hers is a sad and tragic story. It is always painful when one so young is called to heaven. In my heart, I know that the moment her spirit left this earth, she was welcomed into the arms of the father, and this has brought me some solace. Caylee touched the hearts of millions, and will never be forgotten. Caylee's story has brought thousands if not millions of people together. Friendships have been formed that never would have been formed if not for Caylee. The impact Caylee has had on this country, the world, cannot be measured. What new laws that either directly or indirectly stem from Caylee's story will affect future generations of children, possibly worldwide. There are many, many good things that can be achieved in the name of Caylee, if the masses who have come to adore this child work together to improve the world, to improve the legal system, to improve the awareness of just how vulnerable, and fragile, and unequivocally precious our children are to us. Caylee is out of harms way, it is up to us to honor her memory, and work together to make the world a safer, better place for our children. Caylee's smile made everyone who saw her smile, smile. Caylee was a beautiful young girl.

Very well said! You always manage to say what I can't seem to get across in my own post. Yea, our theories, or interpretations, or reasoning, or thoughts, or opinions on this case are mostly considered, balony, misinformed, misinterpreted, mistaken, incorrect, wrong - but I've enjoyed your company and stance! :rocker:

NavySubMom
08-07-2011, 01:56 PM
I'm starting to wonder if the difficulty some of the pro-verdict people are having is more to do with the inability to reconcile WHY KC behaved the way she did. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. If you can't reconcile that she 'could' have done it, then the evidence is going to be easier to throw out or poke holes in. It's easier to accept that it was an accident and she just went into a state of shock and denial than to believe she could kill her daughter and feel nothing.

But you know, I never saw KC show remorse for anything. In all those jail videos, and interviews, and voice recordings, she never showed any indication that she was ever sorry about anything. And you can argue that she didn't have anything to be sorry for because she didn't do anything, but she did PLENTY. She showed no remorse for what happened to Caylee, no remorse for what her parents were going through, no remorse for any of the lies to anyone. What I saw was a woman who manipulated her way through everything. When she got backed against a wall, she just turned left and kept moving.

Sure, there were moments when she cried, or appeared to cry, but I wonder if she was crying for herself more than anything else. And I don't know about you guys, but when I cry my lips get puffy, my nose gets red and snotty, and my eyes get both red and puffy. I just didn't see any of that when KC appeared to get upset.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I would expect someone who was at the center of that big of a mess that she created, would have, at some point said I'm Sorry. You know? "Mom, I'm sorry I lied to you about where Caylee was, I was scared." "Dad, I'm sorry I took the gas cans, I should have told you I took them." Just something. But instead, when she was asked ANYTHING, she lashed out. Or she just created a new lie.

I think she was absolutely capable of killing Caylee, driving around for a few days with her in the trunk, and dumping her in the woods. I don't think this in spite of how she behaved before and after. I think this because of how she behaved before and after. There was no difference in how she was before. No difference. She just carried on and avoided the people who would question where Caylee was. That isn't shock and denial. That's a complete and total lack of feeling.

I had to have one of my cats put to sleep recently. I stayed with him during the procedure, then I brought him home and buried him in the yard. I was a freakin' wreck! Anytime I think about it too hard, I get a lump in my throat. FOR MY CAT. So I can't reconcile how she didn't feel anything for her daughter.
Disclaimer: This post is not directed at anyone in particular. It's just something I picked up on after reading a few thousand posts over the last few weeks. :crazy:

And, as always, this is all just my personal opinion/observation.

OMG, re bbm: I am very sorry for the loss of your cat. I posted the below somewhere, I think during the trial in the real-time threads. I had to put my beloved dog of 14 years to sleep, he also died in my arms at the vet, on 12/4/2010, and I was so devastated. I, too, still cry to this day when I think much about it. When I came home, I went through almost a whole box of sopping wet kleenexes, and I literally could not even breathe my nose became so stuffed-up from crying. My boyfriend did likewise. I just kept getting new kleenexes after the current one became soaked with tears and from blowing my nose. My whole face was puffed up from crying and really red. I was not there when Caylee died (IMO FCA was the only one present), so I have no idea if FCA ever really cried, maybe she did (doubt it, but at least giving her this if it really was a mistake while, IMO, she tried to get her to sleep so she could "party hardy", maybe she did shed a tear or two, but if she had any emotion I think it was probably a little fear of what she had done). During the trial, her kleenexes or toilet paper or paper towels or whatever she had, were not wet. the ONLY time I witnessed "real crying" from her when (1) after CA testified for the Pros. and admittedly the jury was not in the room, she was so angry she was crying, and (2) when LA testified about not being invited to little Caylee's baby shower, whatever those tears were about, I have no idea. Period, IMO, MOO, etc. I realize the trial was years after the fact of Caylee's little death so she may have been desensitized to it (I do not believe that, just trying to give her SOME semblance of emotion at some point about Caylee), but I was crying myself numerous times during that trial and some of the testimony, way more than FCA herself cried. IMO, MOO, etc.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 02:20 PM
Snipped for space by me.

Her lack of emotion towards her daughter Caylee Marie, her only child. This is why people find Casey Anthony so fundamentally loathsome. :twocents:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/foreigner/cold+as+ice_20054885.html

And this lack of emotion is consistent with consciousness of guilt and lack of remorse,not grief.

kimpage
08-07-2011, 02:26 PM
I was not goona post this but......I have a granddaughter who is 1 and a half and I told my daughter if she did what FICA did the trial would be the least of her problems..I would not lie to protect her no matter what.And she would no longer have a mom harsh yes but it is true...Although my daughter is a wonderful mom who loves her daughter so much.Heck we have cried more tears over sweet little Caylee moreso than FICA ever has...JMO and the verdict was such an injustice to precious Caylee Marie.....JMO MOO IMHO AND ALL...

MissJames
08-07-2011, 02:26 PM
I think that fact bothers me the most, not one piece of evidence was requested by the jurors to look at during "deliberations", not ONE readback of ANY piece of testimony, after 6 weeks of trial. I have an incredible memory, people compliment me on it all the time, and I could not remember by any stretch certain things that were testified to. Very important real pieces of evidence. The only piece of evidence they looked at and held was the duct tape. I also recall not one, but numerous people from MSM commented many times during trial on how most of the jurors were not taking notes. IMO ONLY, I do recall the foreman was constantly taking notes, and IMO ONLY, the foreman at some point during the trial told the others something along the line (since I believe IMO he wanted to be foreman all along and be the leader so he could "orchestrate" deliberations...his wording exact there in post-trial interview, orchestrate) IMO, "don't bother about notes all of you, I will take notes for everyone", otherwise, why so few notes? I would be able to schwallow this NG verdict much easier if I thought the jurors at least "deliberated" and put some real thought into the 300+ pieces of "evidence" presented during this trial. and not deliberate on pure speculation or what or how they felt about GA. IMO, MOO, etc.

I'm not sure how he did it,but I agree,the foreman became their leader long before deliberations took place. JF became his cheer leader and together they used faulty reasoning to turn 6 guilty verdicts into NG. Had they actually followed instructions I believe the 6 NG verdicts would have become guilty . JMO
I scratched my head at the background of some of the jurors and felt it was totally inappropriate to have them seated.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 02:29 PM
I was not goona post this but......I have a granddaughter who is 1 and a half and I told my daughter if she did what FICA did the trial would be the least of her problems..I would not lie to protect her no matter what.And she would no longer have a mom harsh yes but it is true...Although my daughter is a wonderful mom who loves her daughter so much.Heck we have cried more tears over sweet little Caylee moreso than FICA ever has...JMO and the verdict was such an injustice to precious Caylee Marie.....JMO MOO IMHO AND ALL...

Thank you for changing your mind and posting :sunshine:

pcrum12
08-07-2011, 02:35 PM
Does anyone know how the juryforman or JF voted in the 1st Degree Murder and the Manslaughter charge during deliberations? Were they in the 10 NG or the 2 G? Were they in the 6 NG or the 6 G? Did either of these 2 give any statement as to how they actually voted? If you do know, can you link it?

Horace Finklestein
08-07-2011, 02:36 PM
Yes...we believe that the verdict was correct in saying NOT GUILTY...we feel that the jurors did an excellent job in their review of the case...the jury foreman being a coach and educator in his everyday life was very informative in explaining to Greta how they came to the conclusion of every bit of evidence that they looked at...

And it was interesting to note that the jury wanted to know the same thing as we were wanting to know...and that was to hear more information about what George Anthony was doing in the home that morning...

What does that mean??

logicalgirl
08-07-2011, 03:03 PM
What does that mean??

I think he is a phys. ed. teacher and sports coach....

RR0004
08-07-2011, 03:06 PM
I do think if you watch the video of KC's jail release and believe what DT is saying about KC's "safety" then the only conclusion you could come to is that many people agree that the jury "did not" do an excellent job and actions of the public has borne that out.

The foreman being a coach/educator should have known to follow the jury instructions which is the main complaint of the majority of us here on this forum. Key evidence was never deliberated and appears only real concerns were about GA. Common sense would tell you if you find the defendant guilty of lying you have to consider she could have been lying about GA to her defense team.

When defense used GA in their opening statement the burden was now on them to prove what they said in their OS was true. That never happened. Nothing was ever put before that jury with proof of what JB stated in his opening statement. Common sense would tell you to go back to square one. Who was responsible for the child....the mother.....who lied....the mother....who was better off without the child proven by her active social life of 31 days....the mother.

Jury wanted to know what GA was doing that morning....well, wouldn't KC know. Wouldn't KC have followed up with that little "story" about how GA carefully wrapped Caylee up and garbage bags and wrapped duct completely around her little body as they did with the dogs...oh, wait....the duct tape was only 7 to 9 inches long....that won't work. Or how KC was just so traumatized that she could not watch so she went in and got on the computer, did some texting and made some phone calls....oh, wait...that won't work either.

One of the last things that LDB said to the jury was to use their common sense and they could not even follow that instruction. I am amazed that this jury thought so little of this child as a victum that they spent a little more than a day and part of that time was focused on GA. That's not using your common sense. jmo

BBM- LC...I have been trying to find the words to express this sentiment. Thank you so much!

RR0004
08-07-2011, 03:07 PM
I think he is a phys. ed. teacher and sports coach....
Personally, I think his teams were calling him. Florida schools start early.

LCoastMom
08-07-2011, 03:15 PM
What does that mean??

Findntruth and fam agreed with the verdict...

RR0004
08-07-2011, 03:18 PM
Two years ago on this site, when it mattered to argue the evidence, I was here doing just that. I was arguing based on my interpretation of the evidence that had been released in the docs, interviews, depos etc. And then, as now, my arguments were generally dismissed as fairy tales. My arguments back then did not have the benefit of cross examination by the defense, nor did it have the benefit of the defense experts taking the stand. The cross examinations, and the defense experts validated my arguments from 2 years ago. Back then I said, if the state doesn't have anything other than what they had shown us in via the Sunshine Law, then there would be a very good chance that KC would be acquitted of the 3 main charges. To the shock and awe of about 70% of the country, that prediction came true when 12 jurors unanimously acquitted KC of the 3 main charges.

Back then, most believed I was basically full of balony, and pretty much still do LOL. Most believed I was interpreting the forensic reports incorrectly, or I wasn't factoring in this or that. Basically letting me know in no uncertain terms that I was incorrect about everything I said. Now of course, nothing has changed except, it is not only me that has interpreted the evidence wrong, that is full of balony, that did not look at all the factors, it is the DT, roughly 30% of the country, the defense experts, and of course the now nearly infamous Pinellas 12.

During the trial, the dt repeatedly asked for a mistrial, and HHBP politely denied the motion. The TH's laughed at the dt for doing this, but they knew it was because the dt has to do so for potential appeals later on. The TH's laughed, because it seemed a forgone conclusion that KC would be convicted. The TH's were convinced the PT was destroying the DT at every turn, convinced the jury was mesmerized by JA and bored to death by JB, convinced that KC's goose was as good as cooked, and the only question was whether she would get the DP or LWOP. I watched the same trial they were watching, and I was feeling dejavu all over again, because what the TH's were saying sounded very much like the responses I had been hearing to my posts for nearly 2 years. When the verdict was read, my response to verdicts 1 thru 3 was "wow", 'wow', and "wow". The decision of the only 12 people in the world that really counted in this case, had reached the same decision I had so very long ago.

Still, my theories, or interpretations, or reasoning, or thoughts, or opinions on this case are mostly considered, balony, misinformed, misinterpreted, mistaken, incorrect, wrong, and will always be considered this way by those who believe the jury got it wrong. That's ok, I am used to it, it comes with the territory of being in a minority.

The remainder of this post is all about Caylee, and how I feel about her.

Caylee was a beautiful young girl. Her smile made everyone who saw her smile, smile. Her smile was infectuous and wonderful. Her bright eyes could uplift one's spirit. When she sang, she made those who listened feel good. Watching videos of this lovely child, even though you may have never met her, made you fall in love with her. She was a typical child who became special to an entire country. Her short presence and early exit from this earth has made history, new laws in her name. Her loss has been mourned by millions. To this day, certain posters have photos of Caylee as their avatar, and these photos still bring tears to my eyes. Hers is a sad and tragic story. It is always painful when one so young is called to heaven. In my heart, I know that the moment her spirit left this earth, she was welcomed into the arms of the father, and this has brought me some solace. Caylee touched the hearts of millions, and will never be forgotten. Caylee's story has brought thousands if not millions of people together. Friendships have been formed that never would have been formed if not for Caylee. The impact Caylee has had on this country, the world, cannot be measured. What new laws that either directly or indirectly stem from Caylee's story will affect future generations of children, possibly worldwide. There are many, many good things that can be achieved in the name of Caylee, if the masses who have come to adore this child work together to improve the world, to improve the legal system, to improve the awareness of just how vulnerable, and fragile, and unequivocally precious our children are to us. Caylee is out of harms way, it is up to us to honor her memory, and work together to make the world a safer, better place for our children. Caylee's smile made everyone who saw her smile, smile. Caylee was a beautiful young girl.

BBM-Thank you, truly.

pcrum12
08-07-2011, 03:24 PM
Does anyone know how the juryforman or JF voted in the 1st Degree Murder and the Manslaughter charge during deliberations? Were they in the 10 NG or the 2 G? Were they in the 6 NG or the 6 G? Did either of these 2 give any statement as to how they actually voted? If you do know, can you link it?

Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.

RR0004
08-07-2011, 03:36 PM
I have to say I got most if not all my information here about the case (I guess maybe the defense team did too as they took every crazy theory and ran with it). I didn't much care what the THs had to say...they proved early on that they didn't have all the facts. It's all in the interpretation of the facts which I truly believe the jurors ignored. I would like to say that they analyzed the information presented, but I just can't. I'm glad I'm not alone in this thinking. I'm glad that something is being done...namely Caylee's Law. We have to stop people from hurting and killing our children. There is no room IMPO for people like Casey in our society. I find no comfort in thinking this may have been an accident because the evidence did NOT prove it was. I wish I could, but I get kind of stuck with HOW she was disposed of and HOW she was found.

imagirlgeek
08-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.

Here's the Greta interview with the foreman where he is talking about the 10-2 pre-vote. Still looking for others...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, for murder, it was 10 to 2, 10 saying -- it was 10 innocent, 2 guilty.
VAN SUSTEREN: And about -- if you went in about 2:15, when do you think that was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't remember exactly when that was.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hour, two hours, three hours, next day?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably about -- well, it wasn't the next day, but we went in on the first day. It was within the first hour.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there was not a lot of persuading or anything that had to be done. I mean, the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not for the pre-vote.
VAN SUSTEREN: Not for the pre-vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there were two that -- were they adamant on guilty or just uncertain, or how do you measure their level of...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe with one, there was an uncertainty, one that was pretty adamant about it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Adamant that it was guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-huh.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what later changed that to not guilty, do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never -- I never really -- with that person, I didn't get into that. It changed through our deliberations...


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039?page=2

RR0004
08-07-2011, 03:37 PM
Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.
Sorry...haven't listened...couldn't tell ya. A search may help you to find video of the interviews.

PeteyGirl
08-07-2011, 04:03 PM
Actually, it IS the state's job to show how she died if they are charging capital murder and put forward a theory as to how it happened. The problem was that their theory was complete speculation, there were no facts to support it. The facts that they did provide had other obvious and more plausible explanations.

I've read and heart samples of the "more plausible explanations" and they are ridiculous.

Btw, the theory put forward by the defence, that Caylee fell into, and drowned in the swimming pool, provides a better explanation for how chlorinated agents may have ended up in the trunk. The only way for that to have happened is for the person to have been doused in chlorinated agents, such that their clothes were soaked. Falling into a Floridian swimming pool seems a pretty good way to achieve that to me. There is no other way to get enough to accumulate in the car. If you were going to knock someone out with chloroform that simply would not have happened.

Chemical science does not support this. Chlorine does not magically transform into chloroform in the quantities measured in that trunk. Just because chloroform sounds like chlorine does not mean they are similar or one becomes the other.

The prosecution also didn't prove that KA drove around with the body in the car for three days, or that a body was even in the car for that matter. All they showed was that something had decomposed there at some point, but that could be just about anything.

Like, for instance, a missing three year old???

So the question to the jury would have been was that Caylee? And if so, who put her there and when? Obviously the jury didn't have answers to those questions beyond the prosecutions speculation. This is why actual evidence that corroborates the theory they are presenting is important.

Listen . . . the trial did not just pop up out of chaos this last May. It was prepared for over almost three years, built up from the scratch of basic building blocks of evidence. With this kind of illogic, a person could not walk down the center of the street without falling over the edge, as the edges of the street would be beyond speculation.

This kind of illogic (with all respect to you as a person, just your post here I'm taking exception to) has been voiced over and over again on this thread and it's sister threads.

Caylee was not just killed or hurt-to-death by "someone". The only way to stay in this frame of logic is to ignore glaring facts presented ad nauseum by the prosecution. I suppose if I put the prosecution on mute every time they opened their mouth, I'd end up with the same kind of conclusion.

Lastly, if KA does have this severe mental illness you suggest,

(she doesn't, as stated by six shrinks)

then the alternative explanation for the evidence would still be consistent with the facts as presented. Because you wouldn't act the way she did doesn't mean that she is guilty of murder. Everyone reacts to a particular situation in different ways, and if someone happens to be mentally ill then they may react in a way very different from how you might react. Her lack of emotion may simply reflect how she is, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Human nature is consistent, which is why a science of psychology of it has existed for 200 years. Also benefitting from the consistency of human nature is the justice system and discovery process. Which does nab the bad guy more often than not.

People do NOT react to particular situations in different ways. They react to situations in about twelve or thirteen PREDICTABLE ways (the number is not exact lol). The accidental or deliberate death of your own child can result in a variety of reactions based upon the psychology of the parent. But those reactions are not unlimited or UNPREDICTABLE.

And neither was Casey's :( She behaved, afterward, as if she were on a reprieve. That is a well explored, well documented predictable reaction of someone with psychopathy (not a mental illness).

What her behavior MEANS is also not some new thing under the sun. It means she didn't care. Her only concern was to not get caught.

Thanks for your post, though, I am only taking exception to what you've written, not your intelligence or concern for Caylee :)

Sustained
08-07-2011, 04:09 PM
During the trial, the dt repeatedly asked for a mistrial, and HHBP politely denied the motion. The TH's laughed at the dt for doing this, but they knew it was because the dt has to do so for potential appeals later on. The TH's laughed, because it seemed a forgone conclusion that KC would be convicted. The TH's were convinced the PT was destroying the DT at every turn, convinced the jury was mesmerized by JA and bored to death by JB, convinced that KC's goose was as good as cooked, and the only question was whether she would get the DP or LWOP. I watched the same trial they were watching, and I was feeling dejavu all over again, because what the TH's were saying sounded very much like the responses I had been hearing to my posts for nearly 2 years. When the verdict was read, my response to verdicts 1 thru 3 was "wow", 'wow', and "wow". The decision of the only 12 people in the world that really counted in this case, had reached the same decision I had so very long ago.

Most, if not all of the TH's are lawyers and have far more trial experience that I do and I defer to their experience ... why would all of the TH's have spouted off about FCA being guilty both before and during the trial if they did not they beleive it was true ? The TH's obviously thought there was enough evidence to convict and some of these TH's had been covering the trial for 3+ years. I do rule out any TH that was working for the DT, i.e. LKB.

So if all of these TH's thought after the trial that FCA would be convicted as I did, they obviously thought the State did a bang-up job in presenting the evidence. Which leads to one and only one conclusion ... the jury dropped the ball in a big way. There must have been a disconnect between what the jury thought they had to do, versus what they actually did.

kelian36
08-07-2011, 04:28 PM
And this lack of emotion is consistent with consciousness of guilt and lack of remorse,not grief.

Yet the jurors ignored that too.

yolorado
08-07-2011, 04:29 PM
I'm not sure how he did it,but I agree,the foreman became their leader long before deliberations took place. JF became his cheer leader and together they used faulty reasoning to turn 6 guilty verdicts into NG. Had they actually followed instructions I believe the 6 NG verdicts would have become guilty . JMO
I scratched my head at the background of some of the jurors and felt it was totally inappropriate to have them seated.

This process indicated the possibility of several problems.

A jury of one's peers should not be required to possess virtually no knowledge about the situation to be litigated. People who know beans, or SAY they know beans, about a national case in the news for three years may be as likely to nothing about the case after they've heard it as they were before it began.

Change of venue should be severely limited. People who share the same community as the accused should not be excluded simply because of their address. If we trust juries of civilians, ... we should trust them. We should not DQ 'em simply for living in the same location as the person on trial. The money not spent on transporting participants around could be used to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

Sequestration is the devils workshop, or it can be, as I believe it was in this case. By isolating jurors TOGETHER for long periods, away from their familiar routines and contact, it likely it may lead to the same group dynamics and group think which I think was created in this situation where it seems as if one strong opinion leader, or group, determined the outcome in which the jury seems as if it may have acted as one, rather than as 12. Sequestration, imo, should be almost never, ever used. Send 'em home at night. We either trust citizens to serve on juries and do the right thing, or we don't. If we don't, perhaps we should start talking about professionals on juries. Use the money saved on hotel and extra meals to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

PeteyGirl
08-07-2011, 04:32 PM
I have to say I got most if not all my information here about the case (I guess maybe the defense team did too as they took every crazy theory and ran with it). I didn't much care what the THs had to say...they proved early on that they didn't have all the facts. It's all in the interpretation of the facts which I truly believe the jurors ignored. I would like to say that they analyzed the information presented, but I just can't. I'm glad I'm not alone in this thinking. I'm glad that something is being done...namely Caylee's Law. We have to stop people from hurting and killing our children. There is no room IMPO for people like Casey in our society. I find no comfort in thinking this may have been an accident because the evidence did NOT prove it was. I wish I could, but I get kind of stuck with HOW she was disposed of and HOW she was found.

I didn't watch HLN until the trial itself, which due to working swing shift, I could watch in it's entirety every day (left coaster here). Not changing the channel after the trial day was over introduced me to Dr Drew, Nancy Grace, JVM, Joy Behar, yadda yadda. These folks are primarily entertainers, OK? Definitely they had some of their facts straight, but the shtick poked out and unless I was overwhelmingly brainwashed during those six weeks by the TH, I'd admit the REST of the facts I got was from here.

I listen to audiobooks and watch Animal Planet, History Channel and Discovery Health Channel (whatever it's become after Oprah bought it out). I probably don't know what's happening down the street unless I drive past it (look, a new Walmart :banghead: ). I'm busy with my little farm in the morning, work as a nurse till midnight, and then come home and spend a lot of time alone late at night with whatever critter is trying to sit on my computer. Today it is a week old duckling named Willow who hatched alone in my incubator and appointed me as her mother duck. Peteygirl is the name of my first pet goose. I live with my head up my own rear end in my own private world except for the info I get from this forum.

So I am practically a media virgin, and am really cynical besides about the media and it's version of the news.

I put what I do have together from Websleuths and the doc dumps. And I spent a lot of time reading the posts and linked articles from pro-verdict folks before I jumped in here. FWIW, I feel I've got a good a handle on the facts as it gets. I tend to trust the legal system as it is. I have a very trusted BS detector (working 17 years as a psych nurse who really wanted to believe the best in people has foisted this upon me).

The comfort I find is yes, in Caylee's Law, for what it's worth, but more in the way life works. Casey's Bella Vita is toast. She is a condemned woman, and there are worse things than death, like, being a pariah. Not that she has the emotional wherewithal to notice, but it will still conscript her life to a very small, stunted thing. Add to that her psychopathy, inability to feel or give love, to bond with others, to find an enduring connection to the good things in life . . . who needs prison? I pray every day for her ovaries to die, but that's about the extent of it.

PeteyGirl
08-07-2011, 04:38 PM
This process indicated the possibility of several problems.

A jury of one's peers should not be required to possess virtually no knowledge about the situation to be litigated. People who know beans, or SAY they know beans, about a national case in the news for three years may be as likely to nothing about the case after they've heard it as they were before it began.

Change of venue should be severely limited. People who share the same community as the accused should not be excluded simply because of their address. If we trust juries of civilians, ... we should trust them. We should not DQ 'em simply for living in the same location as the person on trial. The money not spent on transporting participants around could be used to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

Sequestration is the devils workshop, or it can be, as I believe it was in this case. By isolating jurors TOGETHER for long periods, away from their familiar routines and contact, it likely it may lead to the same group dynamics and group think which I think was created in this situation where it seems as if one strong opinion leader, or group, determined the outcome in which the jury seems as if it may have acted as one, rather than as 12. Sequestration, imo, should be almost never, ever used. Send 'em home at night. We either trust citizens to serve on juries and do the right thing, or we don't. If we don't, perhaps we should start talking about professionals on juries. Use the money saved on hotel and extra meals to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

These are some very important points. Who said pure ignorance (of a case) equaled objectivity?

And I agree about sequestration. That is very hard on people, it almost asks too much. Isolation is well known to bring out primitive behavior. There is a lot more to this, just no time to put it into words.

logicalgirl
08-07-2011, 05:49 PM
What I find amazing about this process is how many people prefer to believe "hidden things" - and "secrets" things are supposively tucked behind something else just waiting for them to be discovered and behold - the truth!

I don't know if it's the Harry Potter syndrome or what....

Sure, I have secrets, you have secrets, FKC has and so do CA and GA. But what's that got to do with this case? Really do the ornaments lying around a living room have anything at all to do with how sound the structure of a building?

Strip the ornaments, the oh so interesting things that "just might be" that so are much fun to infer, whisper about or whatever, and what you've got is a very simple case. It's not complicated at all. All the evidence points to one person. A woman who killed her own child. It's a very rare murder that has a smoking gun - and even fewer that have witnesses. Not that an eye witness will give an accurate description of anything they saw.

But the "maybe" detail dabblers....:waitasec:

And just for the record? The so-called Jury Foreman? Don't believe a word he said about the initial vote. The man has an agenda. (suggest it's about his FBI brother and how two can play justice). If three other jurors we have not yet heard from give me "similar" stories - and note I say similar, not exactly the same stories - then I mark down what he said as having some value in it.

KarmaGet'em
08-07-2011, 07:31 PM
Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.

JF originally voted for Guilty of manslaughter in the 6-6 vote.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/16/sitroom.01.html

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (On camera): They tell me the original vote for the aggravated manslaughter was 6-6.

JENNIFER FORD, JUROR, CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL: Correct.

TUCHMAN: Which side of the six were you on?

FORD: The manslaughter.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 07:51 PM
JF originally voted for Guilty of manslaughter in the 6-6 vote.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/16/sitroom.01.html

And juror # 2 originally voted for Felony 1 . He said the next day "our side started to lose votes" . He was the last hold out. He sounded devastated . He also said that when he looked at the pictures of Caylee with the duct tape across her face he just couldn't imagine why someone would do that to her.It was clear he still felt Casey was guilty ,but the foreman wore him down. IIRC the foreman kind of bragged about it in his interview,probably not realizing he had just outed himself for not following jury instructions.

pcrum12
08-07-2011, 07:53 PM
Here's the Greta interview with the foreman where he is talking about the 10-2 pre-vote. Still looking for others...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, for murder, it was 10 to 2, 10 saying -- it was 10 innocent, 2 guilty.
VAN SUSTEREN: And about -- if you went in about 2:15, when do you think that was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't remember exactly when that was.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hour, two hours, three hours, next day?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably about -- well, it wasn't the next day, but we went in on the first day. It was within the first hour.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there was not a lot of persuading or anything that had to be done. I mean, the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not for the pre-vote.
VAN SUSTEREN: Not for the pre-vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there were two that -- were they adamant on guilty or just uncertain, or how do you measure their level of...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe with one, there was an uncertainty, one that was pretty adamant about it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Adamant that it was guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-huh.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what later changed that to not guilty, do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never -- I never really -- with that person, I didn't get into that. It changed through our deliberations...


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039?page=2

Thank You.

IfIMay
08-07-2011, 07:55 PM
JF originally voted for Guilty of manslaughter in the 6-6 vote.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/16/sitroom.01.html

probably planned to show that yes.. minds can be changed. Everything about these people is suspect in my eyes.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 08:00 PM
Most, if not all of the TH's are lawyers and have far more trial experience that I do and I defer to their experience ... why would all of the TH's have spouted off about FCA being guilty both before and during the trial if they did not they beleive it was true ? The TH's obviously thought there was enough evidence to convict and some of these TH's had been covering the trial for 3+ years. I do rule out any TH that was working for the DT, i.e. LKB.

So if all of these TH's thought after the trial that FCA would be convicted as I did, they obviously thought the State did a bang-up job in presenting the evidence. Which leads to one and only one conclusion ... the jury dropped the ball in a big way. There must have been a disconnect between what the jury thought they had to do, versus what they actually did.

Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.

PeteyGirl
08-07-2011, 08:06 PM
What I find amazing about this process is how many people prefer to believe "hidden things" - and "secrets" things are supposively tucked behind something else just waiting for them to be discovered and behold - the truth!

I don't know if it's the Harry Potter syndrome or what....

<<snipped>>



Or CSI syndrome.

Having serious doubts is one thing. But manufacturing alternate explanations from . . . well, from where? . . . appears to be the theme.

And I agree with the poster who stated that perhaps the "truth" presented by the evidence was just too ugly to bear, was so PERSONALLY devastating that it challenged the foundations of beliefs held dear.

So, confabulating alternate theories that do not rattle cherished belief systems could explain away the ugliness of the evidence.

Everyone has jokingly stuck their fingers in their ears and said "La la la!". It's just my opinion, but I have to wonder if this didn't play a part.

I think some folks find a piece of their identity in going against the grain, being oppositional and a devil's advocate, just for the sake of it. There's not much substance behind their insistence, but there's a lot of vehemence. It's because somehow it's about them personally, not so much the objective facts or evidence.

pcrum12
08-07-2011, 08:08 PM
Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.

do you have a link? TIA

kelian36
08-07-2011, 08:09 PM
Or CSI syndrome.

Having serious doubts is one thing. But manufacturing alternate explanations from . . . well, from where? . . . appears to be the theme.

And I agree with the poster who stated that perhaps the "truth" presented by the evidence was just too ugly to bear, was so PERSONALLY devastating that it challenged the foundations of beliefs held dear.

So, confabulating alternate theories that do not rattle cherished belief systems could explain away the ugliness of the evidence.

Everyone has jokingly stuck their fingers in their ears and said "La la la!". It's just my opinion, but I have to wonder if this didn't play a part.

I think some folks find a piece of their identity in going against the grain, being oppositional and a devil's advocate, just for the sake of it. There's not much substance behind their insistence, but there's a lot of vehemence. It's because somehow it's about them personally, not so much the objective facts or evidence.
bbm

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

kelian36
08-07-2011, 08:10 PM
do you have a link? TIA

You may be able to search for the link. I know it's here. Actually it's also in someone's siggy line.

suzihawk
08-07-2011, 08:41 PM
do you have a link? TIA

&#x202a;LAW EXPERT DISCUSS REMAINS FOUND NEAR THE ANTHONY HOME&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

Caligram
08-07-2011, 09:08 PM
I believe that this jury had their minds ready to make a decision, once it became their responsibility to provide a work product. They must have thought that they were extremely special to get freebies while being wined and dined at the expense of the taxpayers. To also be provided with entertainment meant they were an extraordinary group. It was my understanding that the entertainment extras so carefully planned by HHJP for them was due to his kindness and compassion for the job they were sworn in to do, to help relieve the stress of what they were exposed to as a jury panel in the courtroom.
Rather shameless then, to take and take what was given and go away without giving back by entering into the serious deliberations agreed upon. This was a jury by ambush, diverted by perverted perjury. I haven't read the jury interviews, but from what was commented on the male who gave interviews as the jury foreman. Appalling that one person could nominate himself as jury foreman, if that is what he did, and then "help" the others along to agree with his decision. I believe that he also was allowed to have his laptop with him when not in the courtroom. The jurors must have some interesting case material and possible book notes, simply be reading here on WS. Yet, having no previous knowledge of this case, a decision was hastily rached and the jury hastily left, no comments, buh bye.
So wrong, so very wrong. Justice was not even a consideration. Not for Caylee Marie.
This is all my own opinion.

pcrum12
08-07-2011, 09:32 PM
Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.

So, the interview with Cheney Mason was posted (thank you) and I listened and watched it again. Matter of fact, twice. Where again in this interview does Cheney say she was obviously guilty?

Am I crazy? And just not hearing it?

Is there some other interview you are speaking of?

RANCH
08-07-2011, 09:46 PM
So, the interview with Cheney Mason was posted (thank you) and I listened and watched it again. Matter of fact, twice. Where again in this interview does Cheney say she was obviously guilty?

Am I crazy? And just not hearing it?

Is there some other interview you are speaking of?

Your correct. He didn't use the word guilty.What is your point about this though?

Sustained
08-07-2011, 09:51 PM
So, the interview with Cheney Mason was posted (thank you) and I listened and watched it again. Matter of fact, twice. Where again in this interview does Cheney say she was obviously guilty?

Am I crazy? And just not hearing it?

Is there some other interview you are speaking of?

Mason says "You can pretty much predict there's going to be a life sentence in a plea or have a circus trial, get convicted, and then get life".

I infer from that statement that he believes she is guilty and will get a life sentence. Why else would he predict a life sentence ? This is a man who believes in the jury system and the Constitution, right ?

suzihawk
08-07-2011, 09:53 PM
So, the interview with Cheney Mason was posted (thank you) and I listened and watched it again. Matter of fact, twice. Where again in this interview does Cheney say she was obviously guilty?

Am I crazy? And just not hearing it?

Is there some other interview you are speaking of?

At approximately 2:15 in the video CM says,

"You can pretty well predict that there's going to be a life sentence. And, and either on plea and get it over with or have a circus trial and then be convicted and then get life."

I don't know how else one can interpret that other than he's saying he thinks she's guilty. :waitasec:

He was right about one thing, though. It certainly was a circus trial to which he contributed much to that atmosphere.

com n sense
08-07-2011, 09:54 PM
Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.



AND he was as surprised as the rest of us at the NG verdict!
He also said " we may never know how this child died" .... That was after the NG verdict. I thought she drowned CM????

RANCH
08-07-2011, 09:59 PM
Mason says "You can pretty much predict there's going to be a life sentence in a plea or have a circus trial, get convicted, and then get life".

I infer from that statement that he believes she is guilty and will get a life sentence. Why else would he predict a life sentence ? This is a man who believes in the jury system and the Constitution, right ?

I agree. It's pretty obvious from watching the video what Mason meant. <modsnip>

Baznme
08-07-2011, 10:08 PM
I agree. It's pretty obvious from watching the video what Mason meant.<modsnip>

It's amazing to me, information is requested, you provide it, and yet the message isn't grasped and then they're gone.

Baznme
08-07-2011, 10:26 PM
Did you catch 48 hours tonight? Interesting.......

MissJames
08-07-2011, 11:19 PM
A quick rundown of the jurors. I got this from the synopsis KatelynnCouture did for WS.

There are several that I believe should not have been included either because they opposed the DP or because they or their family members had been arrested .

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgKqMwusbjYrwYzM7s3M7n7LSN4xdLrEfkbwZHbiU88/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

Bold #'s gave interviews

#1 female/ a crisis counselor / has smelled decomp before / not against the DP (she baffles me )

#2 male/ IT tech for the county / wife's a cardiac nurse / against the DP (yet he said in an interview he initially voted for Felony one)

#3 female / JF wanted to be on the jury /32 yr old nursing student / admits she posted on FB that she had jury duty and got messages asking if she was on this jury,but didn't respond /For DP,but could set aside her feelings about the DP to give Casey a fair verdict (she satisfied both sides with that statement )/ would consider abuse,etc as mitigating factors .

#4 female/ (I can't judge people) only watches Westerns on TV ,plays Farmville on FB /wants to be a juror because it's her civic duty/ despite claiming she can't judge people ,she said she's indifferent to the DP.Thinks she could vote for it.
Challenged by PT /overuled

#5 female/ retired /completed 11 grades of school / "I guess I believe in the DP". Hasn't thought about it. /arrested for DUI but not charged/son has been on probation for cashing a bad check/grandson was arrested and did jail time for selling drugs

#6 male/manufacturer's rep for hotel ,restaurant equipment,etc /has also been a chef /indifferent to DP

#7 female/ indifferent about DP but has concerns in the past because it's racially skewed /works in juvenile justice and child welfare (office work)/dated a SA in the past /mother is an attorney /defense challenged due to watching coverage /overuled

#8 female/ recent kidney transplant -needs lab work / has no problem with DP/ said she would "try to sway the other jurors in favor of whatever her opinion was" / service rep @verizon / has London vacation plans for July 14th

#9 male / okay with DP / semi-retired does handi-work and takes care of friend who had a stroke/ no kids,willing to skip nephews upcoming wedding even though he already had plane tickets

#10 male /retention specialist with Verizon/ okay with DP if circumstances warrant it,but thinks it sad/ sister tied up dad and robbed him 17ish years ago and was incarcerated but turned her life around

#11 male -jury foreman / hard for him to decide on DP but thinks he could vote for it/ PE teacher -10th grade for 15 years /studying online for Master's in Special Education / judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror

#12 female /strong supporter of DP/ Publix Cook /thinks jury duty would be a "fun job"

Alternate #2 (included because he was interviewed post-verdict ) male/ would probably vote against DP in a referendum /HS gov't teacher / arrested for DUI in 2004 ,pled to careless driving/ thinks jury duty would be a great teaching tool for his students

Along with the ones noted as primary jurors,several of the alternates have had brushes with the law. The last alternate even said he has trust issues with LE. The State challenged ,but then agreed to include him ,as the LAST alternate (end of the line). Unfortunately ,all these jurors socialized and ate together .Even though they were not supposed to discuss this case,they could still discuss their own experiences and may have influenced other jurors.JMO

logicalgirl
08-07-2011, 11:29 PM
Did you catch 48 hours tonight? Interesting.......

After I read the comments about the "mock jury" I haven't watched another 48 hours since - feel like filling us in? Especially after a teaser like that! :rocker:

margE
08-07-2011, 11:36 PM
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgKqMwusbjYrwYzM7s3M7n7LSN4xdLrEfkbwZHbiU88/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

#11 male -jury foreman / hard for him to decide on DP but thinks he could vote for it/ PE teacher -10th grade for 15 years /studying online for Master's in Special Education / judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror

HMM.. I never saw this anywhere before. Anyone know what this is about?:waitasec:

Horace Finklestein
08-07-2011, 11:39 PM
Mason says "You can pretty much predict there's going to be a life sentence in a plea or have a circus trial, get convicted, and then get life".

I infer from that statement that he believes she is guilty and will get a life sentence. Why else would he predict a life sentence ? This is a man who believes in the jury system and the Constitution, right ?

And then excoriated the media for being wrong about the case...which he himself was. Utterly unbelievable.

TexasLori
08-07-2011, 11:55 PM
Thank you, and yes, I fully expected a but... and I will dwell a little further on the adipocere. I believe I am in fact linking possiblities together. I just do not accept it as fact, that for example, the stain in the trunk was caused by decompositional fluids, nor that the adipocere substance was factually adipocere. I did indeed take into consideration Dr. V's testimony, as well as Dr. F's. So when I link these things together, as you have done, I come up with the following.

Let me start with the odor in the trunk. First off, there was a white trash bag in the trunk that came from a kitchen. There was a foul odor found in the trunk, and it also permeated to the interior of the car. There was chloroform in an air sample from the trunk, but there was no chloroform found in the interior of the car. Several people claimed they smelled human decomposition in the trunk, several others claimed they smelled a bad odor. So for me, thus far into the trunk evidence, it is looking or smelling like there may have been a dead body in the trunk, but it might have been an odor from the white trash bag. Next, we know flies flew out when GA and SB opened the trunk, and GA testified he heard maggots making a popping sound inside the white trash bag. Assuming there had been a body decomposing in the trunk at some point, thousands upon thousands of flies and fly casings and pupai would have been expected to be found not only in the trunk, but in the interior of the car as well. However, unlike the bad odor, the flies followed the same path as the chloroform and stayed only in the trunk, and amazingly in far less numbers than would be logically expected.

At this point, it is likely that there had been a body decomposing in the trunk, but it is also quite possible that there had never been a body decomposing in the trunk. So we go to the next piece of evidence. The stain. CA and LA said there had always been stains in the trunk. GA said there was a basketball sized stain in the trunk. Considering these sources, I took these statements with a grain of salt, and in my opinion, even if Caylee had been in a fetal position, the impression she would have left would have been much larger than a basketball. An officer used an alternate light source, and the stain looked like it may be blood or decompositional fluids. The vehicle was taken to the OCSO forensic garage and the csi's there tested to determine what caused the stain. Their tests came up negative for blood, negative for decompositional fluids, and negative for dna. At this point, although it is still possible that there may have been a body decomposing in the trunk, it is now just as likely that there was not a dead body in the trunk. But lets go further.

Unsatisfied with the OCSO csi results, carpet and air samples were sent to Dr. V. along with some of the contents of the white trash bag. Dr. V using technology only he can use claimed there was a shockingly high level of chloroform in the trunk, and that a fatty substance like adipocere was found on paper towells. He stated that the shockingly high amount of chloroform detected could not have been caused by a decomposing body alone. The defense cross examined and determined that Dr. V had done a qualative report, not a quantative report. How can a shockingly high level of chloroform be determined, if you do not know the quantity? Dr. V states that the fatty acid substance like adipocere contained steoric acid,palmeric acid, oleic acid and paleroleic acid, all of which are part of the makeup of adipocere, and all of which are part of the makeup of cheeses, and other dairy products, and further testing would be required to determine what this substance actually was. So now we have an odor that may have come from a dead body, or from a kitchen trash bag with maggots in it. We have some flies, but not really enough flies to determine whether they were in the trunk because of a dead body, or they were in the trunk because of the contents in a white kitchen trash bag. We have a stain, that although initially believed to have been caused by human decompositional fluids, no evidence recovered from the stain could confirm this. We have a quantative air sample, that found too much chloroform to be caused from a decomposing body inside the trunk, yet no chloroform found in the interior of the car, although the odor found its way from the trunk to the interior of the car. And we have a fatty substance like adipocere that could be either from a decomposing body (which although adipocere can form as early as within a few hours of death, it NORMALLY takes at least 2 to 3 weeks to form), or from something inside the kitchen from where the white kitchen trash bag originated.

There is much more, but the debate is the same. My claim is that I am not looking at each individual piece of evidence and raising doubt to it. I am piecing together both strings of evidence, one for and one against. And I come up to close to call which one is more believeable. And when both sides are equally believeable the jury must side with the defense, and that is why I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

And I do appreciate your critical thinking here. I do wish the jury had applied such thinking in their deliberation. Unfortunately, it has been shown to us by them that they didn't.

You say that you are linking several pieces of evidence, in response to the statement that reasonable doubt can be applied to each piece separately. I believe that when you look at it as a whole, it does not equate to reasonable doubt.

Your example lists three elements of the same piece of evidence. The trunk. So I posit you are still not looking at the big picture.

Take the trunk evidence out and you still have Casey's lies, the 31 days, Caylee's body with duct tape, the partying, and not reporting Caylee missing. I just cannot think of any other conclusion than Casey killed Caylee.

And might I point out, no one has yet accepted my challenge to offer another reasonable scenario that fits with the evidence presented at trial.

MissJames
08-07-2011, 11:58 PM
HMM.. I never saw this anywhere before. Anyone know what this is about?:waitasec:

I have to admit,I really didn't pay that much attention to the jurors ,themselves ,because I was so confident that the very least that would happen would be a hung jury.

Perhaps someone else remembers what this might be about.

lauriej
08-08-2011, 12:05 AM
I think he is a phys. ed. teacher and sports coach....

..he's also the heath teacher.

..i remember this from jury selection-----

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgKqMwusbjYrwYzM7s3M7n7LSN4xdLrEfkbwZHbiU88/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1#
---WS juror profiles---

"the Judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror".

( now i really wonder what that was about ?? )

MissJames
08-08-2011, 12:09 AM
..he's also the heath teacher.

..i remember this from jury selection-----

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgKqMwusbjYrwYzM7s3M7n7LSN4xdLrEfkbwZHbiU88/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1#
---WS juror profiles---

"the Judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror".

( now i really wonder what that was about ?? )

LOL I just posted a rundown of the jurors and included that. Great minds think alike.I was just thanking your posts on the probation hearing thread,but it's locked now.

There are just so many issues with some of the jurors ,I don't understand why they were picked.

gladiatorqueen
08-08-2011, 12:22 AM
Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.

Thank you. I am so tired of the accusations being made against the jury with no proof of any of it.

3doglady
08-08-2011, 12:30 AM
[QUOTE=MissJames;7003666]A quick rundown of the jurors. I got this from the synopsis KatelynnCouture did for WS.

There are several that I believe should not have been included either because they opposed the DP or because they or their family members had been arrested .

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgKqMwusbjYrwYzM7s3M7n7LSN4xdLrEfkbwZHbiU88/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

Bold #'s gave interviews



#2 male/ IT tech for the county / wife's a cardiac nurse / against the DP (yet he said in an interview he initially voted for Felony one)

Respectfully snipped. At least juror #2 understood that he was voting in the guilt phase and not the punishment phase of the trial. I wish he could have gotten that basic concept through to the others.

dizzychick
08-08-2011, 12:35 AM
I was unhappy at how fast the jury was selected. That last juror was voicing his desire not to be on the jury and judge grabbed him up as it was reaching the end of the last day. I dont know what number he was. Would he have been the 12th? Anyway it is my opinion with the haste this jury was picked so was the haste in the deliberations.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 12:38 AM
[QUOTE=MissJames;7003666]A quick rundown of the jurors. I got this from the synopsis KatelynnCouture did for WS.

There are several that I believe should not have been included either because they opposed the DP or because they or their family members had been arrested .

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mgKqMwusbjYrwYzM7s3M7n7LSN4xdLrEfkbwZHbiU88/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

Bold #'s gave interviews



#2 male/ IT tech for the county / wife's a cardiac nurse / against the DP (yet he said in an interview he initially voted for Felony one)

Respectfully snipped. At least juror #2 understood that he was voting in the guilt phase and not the punishment phase of the trial. I wish he could have gotten that basic concept through to the others.

I totally agree. He said he was the last hold out,also. I hope he'll give another interview with more details.

margE
08-08-2011, 12:39 AM
Thank you. I am so tired of the accusations being made against the jury with no proof of any of it.

Hope this is allowed..
&#x202a;CNN: Casey Anthony juror: We didn't buy drowning&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

PeteyGirl
08-08-2011, 12:46 AM
Thank you. I am so tired of the accusations being made against the jury with no proof of any of it.

I agree with you here, there's been a lot of negative speculation about them.

The only "proof" we do have are the interviews, which were enough for me (and many others) to conclude there was misunderstanding/misapplication of the jury instructions. I think the hows and whys have been written out a hundred times on this forum and I have nothing to add.

In terms of quantity, not a huge amount of "proof" the jury failed in their responsibility, but in terms of quality, there's a lot there.

What they jurists told us in their interviews was IMPORTANT stuff, very revealing. I wouldn't go so far as to condemn any jurist's character (they just wanted to go home/on their cruise/whatever). I would interpret what they said at face value.

They blew it.

TexasLori
08-08-2011, 12:48 AM
I'd like to see someone who agrees with the verdict mention Caylee's name and to tell me how it feels that justice for this little girl wasn't served.
Just a random thought.

See, to me this just brings emotion into it. We should be talking about the verdict without the emotional aspect.

lauriej
08-08-2011, 12:49 AM
So, the interview with Cheney Mason was posted (thank you) and I listened and watched it again. Matter of fact, twice. Where again in this interview does Cheney say she was obviously guilty?

Am I crazy? And just not hearing it?

Is there some other interview you are speaking of?


..it's WHAT he says:

Cheney-----"You can pretty well predict that there's going to be a life sentence. And, and either a plea and get it over with, or have a circus trial and then be convicted and then get life."

..using logic and common sense-----it can be reasonably deduced that the speaker ---is predicting that one way or another, kc anthony is going to get a life sentence.

..no-one "predicts" a life sentence for someone they think is innocent.

..if he DID think she was innocent----he would have been shouting THAT loud and clear-----but he didn't.

..therefore----he either believed that she was guilty--or that the evidence (even then) was strong enough that a plea would get her life--or a trial would get her life.....convicted/Guilty/life sentence.

..just b/c you didn't "hear him say"----i think kc is guilty.------doesn't mean that he didn't infer such through what he DID say.

..which i believe was a HUGE problem with the jury.

..they HAD available to them all of the trial testimony/physical evidence/expert opinions/videos/pictures/jail calls/CSI reports etc etc---to use in their deliberations----applying logic/common sense/drawing reasonable inferences/connecting dots...

..but it appears that they too said:

----"Am I crazy? And just not seeing it?"

b/c the state did not provide them with a video.

com n sense
08-08-2011, 12:49 AM
[
judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror....

I'm wondering when JP showed this letter & to which attorneys?:waitasec:

gladiatorqueen
08-08-2011, 12:55 AM
Hope this is allowed..
&#x202a;CNN: Casey Anthony juror: We didn't buy drowning&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_O-wtl5_yo)

I've heard all the interviews, but thanks. Cheers.

margE
08-08-2011, 12:59 AM
I've heard all the interviews, but thanks. Cheers.
Asked for proof..
Just providing you some proof as to how this juror voted to begin with...
cheers to you..
:great:

Baznme
08-08-2011, 01:04 AM
[
judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror....

I'm wondering when JP showed this letter & to which attorneys?:waitasec:

Huh?.........

gladiatorqueen
08-08-2011, 01:11 AM
Asked for proof..
Just providing you some proof as to how this juror voted to begin with...
cheers to you..
:great:

That isn't proof of the accusations I've been reading. Cheers again.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 01:19 AM
After I read the comments about the "mock jury" I haven't watched another 48 hours since - feel like filling us in? Especially after a teaser like that! :rocker:

Good interview with LKB. Said the 31 days behavior made KC her own worst enemy. Claimed the DT would have been happy just to keep her from the DP. Didn't expect full acquittal. Exposed the A's as to having known that the family would be thrown under the bus. That they know she is guilty but, were happy she didn't get death. Showed video of the people outside the courthouse and the full impact of the verdict on most. Reiterated on how much KC is hated and the outrage continues. Even did an interview w/the Attorney General for the State of Fla. and how strongly she believes KC was guilty of Murder One.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 01:26 AM
That isn't proof of the accusations I've been reading. Cheers again.

If you could be more specific, it might be easier to address your post.

PeteyGirl
08-08-2011, 01:36 AM
..it's WHAT he says:

Cheney-----"You can pretty well predict that there's going to be a life sentence. And, and either a plea and get it over with, or have a circus trial and then be convicted and then get life."

..using logic and common sense-----it can be reasonably deduced that the speaker ---is predicting that one way or another, kc anthony is going to get a life sentence.

..no-one "predicts" a life sentence for someone they think is innocent.

..if he DID think she was innocent----he would have been shouting THAT loud and clear-----but he didn't.

..therefore----he either believed that she was guilty--or that the evidence (even then) was strong enough that a plea would get her life--or a trial would get her life.....convicted/Guilty/life sentence.

..just b/c you didn't "hear him say"----i think kc is guilty.------doesn't mean that he didn't infer such through what he DID say.

..which i believe was a HUGE problem with the jury.

..they HAD available to them all of the trial testimony/physical evidence/expert opinions/videos/pictures/jail calls/CSI reports etc etc---to use in their deliberations----applying logic/common sense/drawing reasonable inferences/connecting dots...

..but it appears that they too said:

----"Am I crazy? And just not seeing it?"

b/c the state did not provide them with a video.

Personally, CM says whatever gets his mug on TV.

It is risky to apply logic/common sense and draw reasonable inferences. It is risky because you're gonna have to take responsibility for it. I think some folks are so intimidated by the risk that they avoid making decisions at all. Then, they can blame someone else (like the prosecution) rather than themselves if it all goes sideways.

They just felt "sick" that they "had" to acquit this person who obviously had SOMETHING to do with Caylee's death. If only the prosecution had done their JOB and presented decent evidence, THEN none of this crap (read: public criticism) would have happened.

It's not THEIR fault a possible killer got to walk. It was the prosecutions fault. And that mean, unfair public, criticizing them for doing their best with the crappy excuse for evidence they were forced to work with!

Not only does Casey Anthony walk free, so do the jurors who've rationalized their cowardice into some kind of moral highhorse. They refused to bring a criminal to justice and found a clever (but transparent) explanation for doing it.

I'll admit I have avoided responsibility countless times in my life, most of the time I do it automatically. I'd just rather "not decide" and then when the consequences come, I can say "well I was just sitting here minding my own business when . . ."

I believe I can relate with how the jury appears to have handled their responsibility. If folks are honest, I think we all can.

No amount of clever fake "morality" or "integrity" one might convince oneself of makes for real morality or integrity.

They saw the gravity of their responsibility, and instead of rising to the occasion -- admittedly a very serious one -- they copped out.

I've done it in my life. And suffered for it. I don't see anything unfair to the jury about pointing this out about them. It's not like they are the first people to commit an act of extreme cowardice. It's practically the human condition to get yourself in a pickle like this :(

RR0004
08-08-2011, 02:04 AM
See, to me this just brings emotion into it. We should be talking about the verdict without the emotional aspect.
...and I was waiting for someone to say that. I'd lol...but it's just too sad...IMO.

PS- and if only the jury did the same thing. There was no emotion attached to just not liking George...pleeeez!

RR0004
08-08-2011, 02:09 AM
[
judge showed attorneys a letter in private regarding this juror....

I'm wondering when JP showed this letter & to which attorneys?:waitasec:
Sorry to jump in...but are we talking about the juror who had to see a dentist...or something like that?

RR0004
08-08-2011, 02:15 AM
Did you catch 48 hours tonight? Interesting.......
Thank you for bringing up 48 hours...it had crossed my mind more than once that perhaps that jury consultant was behind the "test" photo op out in Ohio. Trying to get a feel of what the public wants or will tolerate?

kelian36
08-08-2011, 02:32 AM
Thank you for bringing up 48 hours...it had crossed my mind more than once that perhaps that jury consultant was behind the "test" photo op out in Ohio. Trying to get a feel of what the public wants or will tolerate?

Yeppy, I got that impression too. Many people at this point and time are pretty certain the jurors were coached and prepped before the trial started.
Day 1 of the trial--they'd already made up their mind.

Such an injustice for Caylee.

krimekat
08-08-2011, 02:33 AM
I was unhappy at how fast the jury was selected. That last juror was voicing his desire not to be on the jury and judge grabbed him up as it was reaching the end of the last day. I dont know what number he was. Would he have been the 12th? Anyway it is my opinion with the haste this jury was picked so was the haste in the deliberations.

did we witness the same voir dire?

kelian36
08-08-2011, 02:34 AM
...and I was waiting for someone to say that. I'd lol...but it's just too sad...IMO.

PS- and if only the jury did the same thing. There was no emotion attached to just not liking George...pleeeez!

Isn't that the truth!
Baez spouted the words 'George and pe--- 'in his opening statement and the jury immediately hated George.

katydid23
08-08-2011, 02:37 AM
There are several of us in the same family...we converse together about this case...

What 'family' is that? Casey's 'new' family? `

Caligram
08-08-2011, 04:41 AM
It is my very own opinion that the members of the jury formed their very own opinions the minute the "P' word popped out of JB's mouth. Whenever I see his name now, you can be sure what word association comes to mind.

IMO

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:20 AM
Your correct. He didn't use the word guilty.What is your point about this though?

My point is that it has been posted here on WS and on this thread that he said she was obviously guilty. Just want to get the record straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissJames
Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.