PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 [3]

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:22 AM
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 ?

Nowhere in that interview does he stated SHE IS GUILTY. He states she will probably be convicted - not the same.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:24 AM
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.

Saying she will be convicted and saying she is guilty are most definitely two different things.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:25 AM
It's amazing to me, information is requested, you provide it, and yet the message isn't grasped and then they're gone.

Actually, I'm right here. And no, will be convicted and she is guilty are two diferent things.

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 06:32 AM
Nowhere in that interview does he stated SHE IS GUILTY. He states she will probably be convicted - not the same.

LOL. Kind of a twist on the words, like JF said about the verdict - "Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent".
Which makes me curious - the title of this thread is "The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?" - You obviously agree with the verdict - now does that say that you feel there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict? or do you feel that she is innocent? According to JF, they are not the same thing.
Just curious. How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent in the death of her daughter?

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:40 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.

I do not agree. Saying "she is obviously guilty" did not and was not inferred. He simply stated the trial will be a circus, and that she would probably be found guilty or take a plea for that very reason. And, I might add, the trial was a circus, heck it was a circus for 3 yrs prior to trial thru the media. MOO

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:46 AM
Asked for proof..
Just providing you some proof as to how this juror voted to begin with...
cheers to you..
:great:

I'm the poster that asked for proof. And yet to have seen any that Cheney stated "she is obviously guilty" and have only seen personal interpretation as to what he actually did say means.

kelian36
08-08-2011, 06:48 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
I agree. In fact I said the same thing last night. OS + p word = jurors non guilty verdict.
Such an injustice............. a little 2 year old girl found murdered and tossed into the swampy dump pile in the woods............just 15 houses away from where she lived with her birth person. Found in a hamper liner from her home, found duct taped with duct tape from her home, found in 3 trash bags from her home, with her blankie from her home.


How do the jurors sleep at night?:shocked2:

askfornina
08-08-2011, 06:50 AM
LOL. Kind of a twist on the words, like JF said about the verdict - "Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent".
Which makes me curious - the title of this thread is "The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?" - You obviously agree with the verdict - now does that say that you feel there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict? or do you feel that she is innocent? According to JF, they are not the same thing.
Just curious. How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent in the death of her daughter?

i firmly believe that i do not know what happened.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 06:55 AM
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 :(

In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 07:06 AM
Did you ever look up the video and hear the words he uttered? Someone posted it back a page or 2.
Dont expect everyone else to do the searching, really!

Lol. I seen the video many many times. And yes I watched and listened to it two more times after someone posted here after me asking for PROOF of what one poster stated (Cheney Mason stated she was obviously guilty) which again WAS NOT TRUE. You might take note that the poster who stated such did NOT provide the link. When making a statement as FACT. It is common practice on this forum to ask for a LINK. Which I did! I do not expect anyone to do my on searching. <modsnip>

kelian36
08-08-2011, 07:06 AM
Unlike the jurors I can connect the dots.

Juror #3 said she could not vote guilty on any charges because KC would get the DP. She said if lesser charges had been included she could have voted guilty. That tells me in no uncertain terms that #3 did not understand even the basics of her job as a juror. She was specifically instructed not to consider punishment during the guilt phase and lesser charges were included.

The foreman told Greta that they were not allowed to consider the 31 days. Even Greta looked astonished at that one. He also told Greta that the DP was written on the verdict paper which was laying on the table while they deliberated. Either he lied or had no clue what he was talking about.

Since you've seen the interviews I won't look up the links.

:goodpost:

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 07:06 AM
i firmly believe that i do not know what happened.

Fair enough. Thank you for your response. I suppose I should have posed the question - How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent of all charges that she was found NG on?

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 07:12 AM
In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

No, if they had simply voted her guilty of 1st degree murder they would have had to stick around for the sentencing phase, which would have cut into (some of) their vacation plans.
As 3doglady pointed out, JF revealed some major errors on their part by considering the penalty during the guilt phase, etc. which does not show that they took the jury instructions and (correctly) applied them. IMO

kelian36
08-08-2011, 07:15 AM
I disagree with the verdict.
There was more than enough evidence presented to render the right verdict--a guilty one.
I'm ashamed of our justice system because it allowed the jurors to take a child's murder so lightly. The jurors allowed a (mo) murderer to walk out of jail free...no punishment for killing her child. (mo)
Like some said previously........1 village ------------12 idiots.

askfornina
08-08-2011, 07:20 AM
Fair enough. Thank you for your response. I suppose I should have posed the question - How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent of all charges that she was found NG on?

i think she was very obviously involved. i just don't know to what extent. if i were on the jury, i would just not feel comfortable making that leap to a guilty verdict without more information. this is a controversial statement and i am not interested in arguing it, just simply answering your question.

i have said this before, but here it is again. i think this is the exact moment in time that the DT sealed the deal:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/Cheney-Mason-Burden-of-Proof-0703_rdax_432x480.jpg

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 07:22 AM
No, if they had simply voted her guilty of 1st degree murder they would have had to stick around for the sentencing phase, which would have cut into (some of) their vacation plans.
As 3doglady pointed out, JF revealed some major errors on their part by considering the penalty during the guilt phase, etc. which does not show that they took the jury instructions and (correctly) applied them. IMO

I just do not think IMO that this jury considered their vacations etc and voted NG just to get out of there. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

kelian36
08-08-2011, 07:25 AM
Let's see, the jurors took aprox. 10 hours for deliberation. 10 hours to discuss a murder trial...remember a child was murdered. (mo)
No jurors requested to review ANYTHING.

Those jurors were ready to go home.
July 4th week, summer in full swing, vacations planned, a coach getting ready for summer practice....................sad sad commentary on jurors and how they handle a trial. mo

EPfan
08-08-2011, 08:03 AM
i think she was very obviously involved. i just don't know to what extent. if i were on the jury, i would just not feel comfortable making that leap to a guilty verdict without more information. this is a controversial statement and i am not interested in arguing it, just simply answering your question.

i have said this before, but here it is again. i think this is the exact moment in time that the DT sealed the deal:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/Cheney-Mason-Burden-of-Proof-0703_rdax_432x480.jpg

I agree with you. But for me, after the prosecution rested, I felt empty because I just saw a theory that wasn't proven. I don't think they focused on the chloroform or duck tape to tie it to KC, yet is was said to be the murder weapons. Even in closing arguments JA said he hoped the chloroform was used before the duck tape was applied. Well I could make this long but I won't. HOPED isn't a word you should use if you know. Respectfully, most posters here on the forum really strongly believe that the verdict was wrong but when you ask for the evidence it's the same ole same ole. Circumstantial and they just know. In the real world you have to prove it was murder, when charged with murder. The proof wasn't there in the prosecutions case and jurors knew that as soon as they were sent to deliberations. I remember thinking I just can't see a guilty verdict here. When watching a trial like this you have to put yourself in the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode. I applaud the jury for having the guts to do what they thought right even though they knew it wasn't going to be the favorite with the public.
I definitely think KC was there but I think it was some sort of accident and like a child she freaked and pretended it didn't happen. We won't ever know too many lies, and not just KC.

Devon
08-08-2011, 08:15 AM
In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.


I agree. I think the jury was extremely courageous in returning a verdict based NOT on emotions or their personal opinions of KC's character or behaviour, but on the LAW - the jury instructions, the evidence presented IN court and according to the standard of BARD.

I'm amazed at the number of posters who have taken the limited comments from 2 or 3 jurors as being representative of some sort of dereliction of duty by the entire jury. Those few who have given interviews were essentially just answering selected questions with a mixture of factual information (the process of their deliberations) together with some of their OWN opinions and feelings (which clearly, and quite rightly, did not influence their verdict decisions).

I can perfectly understand a juror feeling "sick to the stomach" at not being able to find a defendant guilty of any serious wrongdoing when the defendant has behaved in a truly despicable manner and when a sweet toddler's body was found skeletonised, scattered around a dank wooded area and chewed by animals. It's heart-wrenching, and I get the distinct impression (from those few juror comments) that they wished they could have found her guilty of something more, but the evidence just wasn't there for counts 1 - 3 (and I agree) and the state did not charge on anything else that might have been applicable to these particular circumstances.

They could not, should not, and DID not, use those feelings of disgust, anger or sadness to justify a verdict on any of the major charges when the evidence alone was inconclusive. JF's comment about 'connecting the dots' was absolutely right, IMO. She obviously understood the concept of connecting the dots but quite rightly said (not verbatim) that if there were just too many question marks about the evidence then they couldn't just fill in the blanks with speculation, accusations etc. and they clearly concluded (as I and many others have) that the state did not prove those charges BARD.

And yes, just in case anyone is wondering, I HAVE been following the case from the beginning, have been a member of this forum since October 2008 and have read (many times over) ALL the discovery. Even knowing ALL that I know about the case, I would have voted the same way as the jury did.

suzihawk
08-08-2011, 08:25 AM
I agree. I think the jury was extremely courageous in returning a verdict based NOT on emotions or their personal opinions of KC's character or behaviour

You're absolutely correct. The jury did not base their verdict on KC's character or behavior, which they should have. Instead, they based it on the emotional 'testimony' of the defense opening statement and on GA's character and behavior.

MOO

Devon
08-08-2011, 08:27 AM
I believe she is guilty of things she WAS NOT charged with. I believe she neglected to watch her child closely and I believe she disposed of the body. MOO.

I agree.

GiantPickle
08-08-2011, 08:33 AM
I don't think FCA murdered Caylee the way the state wants you to believe so technically she'd be NG of felony one in my world....but she absolutely is responsible for her daughter's death due to FCA's negligence. She is also responsible for improper disposal of a corpse/desecrating a corpse etc.

LOL. Kind of a twist on the words, like JF said about the verdict - "Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent".
Which makes me curious - the title of this thread is "The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?" - You obviously agree with the verdict - now does that say that you feel there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict? or do you feel that she is innocent? According to JF, they are not the same thing.
Just curious. How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent in the death of her daughter?

SewingDeb
08-08-2011, 08:34 AM
I believe she is guilty of things she WAS NOT charged with. I believe she neglected to watch her child closely and I believe she disposed of the body. MOO.

Charge # 3 covered neglect, iirc.

GiantPickle
08-08-2011, 08:36 AM
In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

but then they'd be sequestered for a few more weeks with the penalty phase.

Devon
08-08-2011, 08:40 AM
i think she was very obviously involved. i just don't know to what extent. if i were on the jury, i would just not feel comfortable making that leap to a guilty verdict without more information. this is a controversial statement and i am not interested in arguing it, just simply answering your question.

i have said this before, but here it is again. i think this is the exact moment in time that the DT sealed the deal:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/news2011/Cheney-Mason-Burden-of-Proof-0703_rdax_432x480.jpg

Agreed. I was quite surprised at the quite high levels of persuasion/belief that do not meet the standard of BARD, particularly "strong belief", but CM's chart is obviously legally correct because it received NO challenge from either the prosecution or the judge.

BARD is a very high level of personal conviction and I think many people just don't understand it. I also see many comments that IMO misinterpret the application of this concept of reasonable doubt, e.g. such as the DT's alternative theory not being 'reasonable', hence the PT's theory is the only 'reasonable' one etc., but that is not what it's about.

GiantPickle
08-08-2011, 08:52 AM
she woulda got guilty on both of these charges from me:

Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse: The maximum penalty for aggravated child is 15 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 12 years, 1 month.

Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: If Casey Anthony is convicted of causing the death of Caylee by culpable negligence the maximum sentence is 30 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 16 years and 6 months.

source for chgs http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/273571/Casey-Anthony:-The-charges-against-her

I really can't understand why she didn't get count 3...if they believed the drowning (which I'm not sure they did) she was negligent

Devon
08-08-2011, 08:56 AM
I agree with you. But for me, after the prosecution rested, I felt empty because I just saw a theory that wasn't proven. I don't think they focused on the chloroform or duck tape to tie it to KC, yet is was said to be the murder weapons. Even in closing arguments JA said he hoped the chloroform was used before the duck tape was applied. Well I could make this long but I won't. HOPED isn't a word you should use if you know. Respectfully, most posters here on the forum really strongly believe that the verdict was wrong but when you ask for the evidence it's the same ole same ole. Circumstantial and they just know. In the real world you have to prove it was murder, when charged with murder. The proof wasn't there in the prosecutions case and jurors knew that as soon as they were sent to deliberations. I remember thinking I just can't see a guilty verdict here. When watching a trial like this you have to put yourself in the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode. I applaud the jury for having the guts to do what they thought right even though they knew it wasn't going to be the favorite with the public.
I definitely think KC was there but I think it was some sort of accident and like a child she freaked and pretended it didn't happen. We won't ever know too many lies, and not just KC.

Agreed. When the prosecution rested I was stunned. I remember thinking "is that it"? By that time the DT had poked holes in much of their evidence and I was waiting for them to counter with something more persuasive, but it never happened. It was like being at a firework display on a damp night - everything just fizzled out. I thought that the jury might not have been able to set emotions and personal opinions aside and I must admit that I was surprised when the verdicts were read, but IMO they did the right thing and I too applaud them, since I'm sure they knew full well that they would be subjected to an angry backlash.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 08:56 AM
I just do not think IMO that this jury considered their vacations etc and voted NG just to get out of there. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

IMO, they did want to get out of there. Why were they dressed up on Day 2 of deliberations and more importantly, think about this ...

If they deadlocked 6-6 on manslaughter, you mean to tell that all six of these intelligent jurors were swayed back to a not guilty verdict WITHOUT looking at any evidence or requested any readbacks of trial testimony ? Just like that because the foreman said we can't consider the 31 days, they were swayed back to not guilty ? Gimme a break ...

I tried to wear a juror's shoes in this instance ... if I was convinced she was guilty of manslaughter, someone would have show me the flaws in the EVIDENCE that would prove me wrong. Same as on this forum ...
So now go ahead and tell me now that the 6 not guilty manslaughter voters KNEW THE EVIDENCE BY HEART and could cite trial testimony verbatim and could sway the others just by snapping their fingers ? As Susan Moss said ... "we've been O.J.-ed".

GiantPickle
08-08-2011, 08:57 AM
I really can't understand why CM's poster is OK and I get why the jury didn't quite understand what reasonable doubt meant. I've always been taught it doesn't mean "no doubt" so "strongly believe" should be on the guilty side...I might even think "guilt likely" would be also be on the reasonable doubt side. Without a video and 40 witnesses of exceptional character...it's always "strongly" or "likely" the defendant did it.

askfornina
08-08-2011, 09:01 AM
i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

Baznme
08-08-2011, 09:01 AM
Actually, I'm right here. And no, will be convicted and she is guilty are two diferent things.

I'm a little thick sometimes, but the inference that she will probably be convicted IMO, doesn't equate to anything other than perceived "guilt".

So, if you still believe that the phrase "probably will be convicted" and "probably guilty" is two different things, maybe you could explain that to us?

LambChop
08-08-2011, 09:02 AM
I agree. I think the jury was extremely courageous in returning a verdict based NOT on emotions or their personal opinions of KC's character or behaviour, but on the LAW - the jury instructions, the evidence presented IN court and according to the standard of BARD.

I'm amazed at the number of posters who have taken the limited comments from 2 or 3 jurors as being representative of some sort of dereliction of duty by the entire jury. Those few who have given interviews were essentially just answering selected questions with a mixture of factual information (the process of their deliberations) together with some of their OWN opinions and feelings (which clearly, and quite rightly, did not influence their verdict decisions).

I can perfectly understand a juror feeling "sick to the stomach" at not being able to find a defendant guilty of any serious wrongdoing when the defendant has behaved in a truly despicable manner and when a sweet toddler's body was found skeletonised, scattered around a dank wooded area and chewed by animals. It's heart-wrenching, and I get the distinct impression (from those few juror comments) that they wished they could have found her guilty of something more, but the evidence just wasn't there for counts 1 - 3 (and I agree) and the state did not charge on anything else that might have been applicable to these particular circumstances.

They could not, should not, and DID not, use those feelings of disgust, anger or sadness to justify a verdict on any of the major charges when the evidence alone was inconclusive. JF's comment about 'connecting the dots' was absolutely right, IMO. She obviously understood the concept of connecting the dots but quite rightly said (not verbatim) that if there were just too many question marks about the evidence then they couldn't just fill in the blanks with speculation, accusations etc. and they clearly concluded (as I and many others have) that the state did not prove those charges BARD.

And yes, just in case anyone is wondering, I HAVE been following the case from the beginning, have been a member of this forum since October 2008 and have read (many times over) ALL the discovery. Even knowing ALL that I know about the case, I would have voted the same way as the jury did.

Common sense would tell you after process of elimination and the fact that KC lied you can only conclude one person was responsible for Caylee and that was her mother. If KC said Caylee drowned and her father found her and her father testified Caylee did not drown you can't consider KC was telling the truth about the drowning. This is a jury instruction regarding a witness lying. All the other State's evidence and specifically Dr. G's testimony points to felony murder. It was that simple. jmo

Sustained
08-08-2011, 09:08 AM
Agreed. I was quite surprised at the quite high levels of persuasion/belief that do not meet the standard of BARD, particularly "strong belief", but CM's chart is obviously legally correct because it received NO challenge from either the prosecution or the judge.

BARD is a very high level of personal conviction and I think many people just don't understand it. I also see many comments that IMO misinterpret the application of this concept of reasonable doubt, e.g. such as the DT's alternative theory not being 'reasonable', hence the PT's theory is the only 'reasonable' one etc., but that is not what it's about.

Funny, I don't see speculative, imaginary, forced or possible doubt on CM's chart anywhere. And I am surprised that the State did not counter with a chart of it's own, showing the correct meaning of reasonable doubt. The way his chart reads to me is beyond the shadow of any doubt, not reasonable doubt.

coco puff
08-08-2011, 09:26 AM
Common sense would tell you after process of elimination and the fact that KC lied you can only conclude one person was responsible for Caylee and that was her mother. If KC said Caylee drowned and her father found her and her father testified Caylee did not drown you can't consider KC was telling the truth about the drowning. This is a jury instruction regarding a witness lying. All the other State's evidence and specifically Dr. G's testimony points to felony murder. It was that simple. jmo

THANK YOU! Simple as that!

:woohoo:

Chablis
08-08-2011, 09:27 AM
I believe she is guilty of things she WAS NOT charged with. I believe she neglected to watch her child closely and I believe she disposed of the body. MOO.

Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

MissJames
08-08-2011, 09:29 AM
i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

Videos,read back of testimony or clarification of juror deliberation instructions .

yolorado
08-08-2011, 09:30 AM
Charge # 3 covered neglect, iirc.

When watching the verdict, I about keeled over when the NG for neglect came out. That one scared me the most, proved the most soundly how hosed our so-called best in the world jury system is. How could all 12 go that way? ALL 12?! The only answer I can come up with is that isolating these people together away from their individual lives essentially made them into a group of one mind, probably set and determined by a strong opinion leader. I'll never be convinced that sequestering these people away from home and the real world, or grossly reducing the pool of jurors by the silly conventions which have come to hold sway in the system didn't determine the verdict rather than anything presented in court ... ANYTHING! The jurors who have spoken didn't give any indication of listening to, reading, or understanding the charges or JP's instructions to the jury. They didn't ignore what the judge told them to not consider. They stuck on Baez's opening statement and that was that. Not guilty of the child abuse charges? Oh my, what a country! She killed that baby. Talk about no proof...there was no proof of any innocent accident. If fact, everything presented indicated something else entirely. She had the baby in her custody, never reported her missing, blamed the baby's disappearance on others and threw her body away like trash. How was that acceptable to these jurors? This woman is FREE TODAY in America. Say it again- WHAT a country. FREE! Not even a convicted child abuser/neglector. Completely free. I've pretty much lost the considerable respect I used to have for our laws and legal system. I don't think I'll ever get very much of it back after this travesty. In the words of Cindy Anthony, "Something's wrong!"

coco puff
08-08-2011, 09:30 AM
Someone please tell me why the defense could NOT explain how Caylee's body got to the swamp, hidden in trash bags, with duct tape found where her face should have been? If this was an accident, they should be able to explain it.

When my children are looking guilty and I ask what happened and they say "I don't know", you can bet they know and it ain't good!

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:32 AM
Charge # 3 covered neglect, iirc.

In charge #3 the neglict had to be proven that it was Culpable.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable.

grandmaj
08-08-2011, 09:33 AM
This thread is a train wreck this morning. Knock it off. We don't personalize posts and we do not insult one another and bash one another.

State your opinion do not talk about other posters on this forum, do not generalize and do not snark.

The list of posters who are going to be on TO if this continues is long. So knock off the drive by posts.

askfornina
08-08-2011, 09:34 AM
Videos,read back of testimony or clarification of juror deliberation instructions .

can't seem to find this after googling. could you kindly link me? thanks. what do you mean by videos? maybe i'm not understanding what you are trying to say here. can you clarify?

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:41 AM
she woulda got guilty on both of these charges from me:

Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse: The maximum penalty for aggravated child is 15 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 12 years, 1 month.

Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: If Casey Anthony is convicted of causing the death of Caylee by culpable negligence the maximum sentence is 30 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 16 years and 6 months.

source for chgs http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/273571/Casey-Anthony:-The-charges-against-her

I really can't understand why she didn't get count 3...if they believed the drowning (which I'm not sure they did) she was negligent

My opinion on that is that yes, she was negligent. But, negligent and CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE are 2 different things.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:44 AM
IMO, they did want to get out of there. Why were they dressed up on Day 2 of deliberations and more importantly, think about this ...

If they deadlocked 6-6 on manslaughter, you mean to tell that all six of these intelligent jurors were swayed back to a not guilty verdict WITHOUT looking at any evidence or requested any readbacks of trial testimony ? Just like that because the foreman said we can't consider the 31 days, they were swayed back to not guilty ? Gimme a break ...

I tried to wear a juror's shoes in this instance ... if I was convinced she was guilty of manslaughter, someone would have show me the flaws in the EVIDENCE that would prove me wrong. Same as on this forum ...
So now go ahead and tell me now that the 6 not guilty manslaughter voters KNEW THE EVIDENCE BY HEART and could cite trial testimony verbatim and could sway the others just by snapping their fingers ? As Susan Moss said ... "we've been O.J.-ed".

BBM: How do you know? How do you know they did not look at any evidence? They had the exhibits. How do you know they did not look and discuss such?

yolorado
08-08-2011, 09:45 AM
Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

Of course because we certainly shouldn't be mad about any of the following.

We shouldn't be mad at poor KC who just...well never reported her child missing and/or dead, who threw her child away in a swamp.

KC, who blamed everybody but herself, threw innocent people under the bus FOR WHAT SHE DID and never accepted any responsibility for anything.

The DT who pulled every sleazy trick in the book to get a guilty woman off and set her free in society.

The prosecution didn't overcharge. They found a dead baby in a swamp never reported dead or missing by her mother, wrapped in duct tape, transported in her mother's car and a mother who seemed fine lying about the whole thing, sending police on wild goose chases and having moved on with her life until she was caught. If the jury thought it wasn't 1st degree, they could have gone with 2nd. If they didn't think it was 2nd, they could have gone with lower charges than that. I don't think they read the instructions far enough to understand that. They went with not guilty. KC is FREE today! Travesty of all travesties.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:46 AM
I really can't understand why CM's poster is OK and I get why the jury didn't quite understand what reasonable doubt meant. I've always been taught it doesn't mean "no doubt" so "strongly believe" should be on the guilty side...I might even think "guilt likely" would be also be on the reasonable doubt side. Without a video and 40 witnesses of exceptional character...it's always "strongly" or "likely" the defendant did it.

Then why didn't the judge or PT object to CM's poster, if it was not correct?

Baznme
08-08-2011, 09:47 AM
In charge #3 the neglict had to be proven that it was Culpable.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable.


__________________________________________________ ____________________

Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable"

What?


I couldn't disagree more. If you are sleeping or on the computer, not watching your child closely enough - that defendant KNEW, or reasonably SHOULD HAVE KNOWN was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Children are not capable of supervising themselves, therefore, she should be held responsible. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others.It fits but......the DT threw in good old GA as co-conspirator in the alleged knowledge of the death and improper disposal, therefore the inference was that GA took over and KC was completely innocent. They covered their bases in their "alibi" and the jury bought it.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:47 AM
i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:51 AM
I'm a little thick sometimes, but the inference that she will probably be convicted IMO, doesn't equate to anything other than perceived "guilt".

So, if you still believe that the phrase "probably will be convicted" and "probably guilty" is two different things, maybe you could explain that to us?

Sure. perceived "guilt" - perceived being the key word. What is perceived and what is fact are 2 different things.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 09:54 AM
Common sense would tell you after process of elimination and the fact that KC lied you can only conclude one person was responsible for Caylee and that was her mother. If KC said Caylee drowned and her father found her and her father testified Caylee did not drown you can't consider KC was telling the truth about the drowning. This is a jury instruction regarding a witness lying. All the other State's evidence and specifically Dr. G's testimony points to felony murder. It was that simple. jmo

Why not? her father lies too. The jury instruction regarding witness lying states you may believe all, some, or none of a witness testimony. I doesn't say this just applies to the defendant.

logicalgirl
08-08-2011, 09:56 AM
Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

Ah..hmm...AZ is not a criminal lawyer..... and does not practise in Florida and the evidence was still all laid out on the evidence table......when the verdict was read.

yolorado
08-08-2011, 09:57 AM
Accidents happen, and people who have no culpability or who just fell pray to a moment's distraction call 911. I will never be convinced that this was an accidental drowning, but IF it was and if KC didn't call 911 to try to revive the child and to show proof at the time that it was an accident, how is that not child abuse or neglect? She didn't try to save the child! She didn't do everything in her power to make sure the child couldn't be saved. Then, the baby was thrown away in a swamp, her child for whom she bore responsibility. How on any planet would THAT not constitute child abuse or neglect!?

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 09:58 AM
i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

My understanding is that they would have to ask the judge if they wanted any of the testimony read back to them from the court reporter. Also, any videos would have to be requested. Here is a snippet from an article written while they were in deliberations:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/casey-anthony-trial-prosecutors-get-the-final-word-with-jurors-monday-63160.html

The jury received the more than 400 pieces of evidence in the jury room that have been by both sides in the case since the trial began in late May.

But jurors will be brought into open court should they request to view any of the video evidence, a court official said. Equipment for video viewing is not available in the deliberation room. The jury has the ability to send questions to Judge Perry via the court deputies, but had yet to do so.

So, I believe they had access to SOME of the evidence, but, at 400 pieces, I believe they would have to request to see any of those that were in the court room.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 09:58 AM
Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

In all fairness, JF stated in her interview, "they started to go through it". Whatever that means.

logicalgirl
08-08-2011, 09:59 AM
Why not? her father lies too. The jury instruction regarding witness lying states you may believe all, some, or none of a witness testimony. I doesn't say this just applies to the defendant.

I see, so the theory is that although FKC is a habitual liar and lies even when it isn't necessary, and in her own words is a great liar, in these two instances, the drowning and the abuse - these two times she told the truth? What are the chances of that?

Everyone was lying but FKC? FKC who received four guilty sentences for lying? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

askfornina
08-08-2011, 10:02 AM
My understanding is that they would have to ask the judge if they wanted any of the testimony read back to them from the court reporter. Also, any videos would have to be requested. Here is a snippet from an article written while they were in deliberations:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/casey-anthony-trial-prosecutors-get-the-final-word-with-jurors-monday-63160.html



So, I believe they had access to SOME of the evidence, but, at 400 pieces, I believe they would have to request to see any of those that were in the court room.

wow, thank you! i have asked this numerous times numerous places and no one has ever been able to answer before. lol. :)

Baznme
08-08-2011, 10:03 AM
Sure. perceived "guilt" - perceived being the key word. What is perceived and what is fact are 2 different things.

So, can we agree that CM "perceived" guilt?

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 10:04 AM
Someone please tell me why the defense could NOT explain how Caylee's body got to the swamp, hidden in trash bags, with duct tape found where her face should have been? If this was an accident, they should be able to explain it.

When my children are looking guilty and I ask what happened and they say "I don't know", you can bet they know and it ain't good!

"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/casey-anthony-shocker-caylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

Sustained
08-08-2011, 10:07 AM
Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo
So now the State is in cahoots with NG ? And please provide an interview with any member of the State's team where expressed an overwhelming confidence in the conviction of FCA.

natsound
08-08-2011, 10:08 AM
Someone please tell me why the defense could NOT explain how Caylee's body got to the swamp, hidden in trash bags, with duct tape found where her face should have been? If this was an accident, they should be able to explain it.

When my children are looking guilty and I ask what happened and they say "I don't know", you can bet they know and it ain't good!

They really don't have to explain it, coco. All they have to do is create smoke and mirrors to confuse the jury in a case where guilt is so obvious. The defense didn't have to explain anything. :sick: I just can't believe the jury fell for it. I thought there were intelligent people up there.

natsound
08-08-2011, 10:10 AM
Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

I don't agree completely with your statement, but I do agree that the state made some mistakes, and I have not watched NG since the verdict because she is so full of air.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 10:13 AM
"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/casey-anthony-shocker-caylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

BBM - Exactly!

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 10:14 AM
"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/casey-anthony-shocker-caylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

IMO, Ann Finnell probably said the truth when she said "I don't think I know the complete story". However, the complete story part that she does not know is the part about what Casey knows. To say that "I don't think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death]" kind of conflicts with the fact that she herself does not know the complete story. IOW - Casey lied to her as well as everyone else (IMO).

Casey revealed what she knew about Caylees remains and location by her reaction to the discovery of bones at J Blanchard Park vs her reaction to the discovery of bones at Suburban Dr. (IMO)

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 10:15 AM
__________________________________________________ ____________________

['Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable"

What?


I couldn't disagree more. If you are sleeping or on the computer, not watching your child closely enough - that defendant KNEW, or reasonably SHOULD HAVE KNOWN was likely to cuase death or great bodily injury. Children are not capable of supervising themselves, therefore, she should be held responsible. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. It fits but......the DT threw in good old GA as co-conspirator in the knowledge and improper disposal, therefore the inference was that GA took over and KC was completely innocent. They covered their bases in their "alibi" and the jury bought it.

So in your belief any child that accidentally dies is CULPABLE negligence and therefore is guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter? So any parent that let's their child out of their sight and the child drowns, chokes, runs out in the street and gets hit, etc. is punishable by builty of aggravated manslaughter. I'm not agreeing with that but you are entitled to your opinion.

yolorado
08-08-2011, 10:15 AM
"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/casey-anthony-shocker-caylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

Why NOT!? She was the child's mom. The child was in her care. Why the heck would she not know EXACTLY what happened!? If she were not grossly negligent, why would she make no effort to protect or save the child, and if she did not, wouldn't that EXACTLY constitute child abuse or neglect? Why would she lie to protect herself rather than getting to the bottom of what actually happened if she herself didn't cause it? It seems as if Finnell would like (if indeed she does believe what she says) for some sort of of diminished capacity to be sneaked in under the radar, even though KC was found legally sane to stand trial. Pretty much though, that's what happened. Seemingly, the jury didn't want to hold KC responsible for anything. They didn't seem to think she needed to report her child missing...if she was, or dead from an accident...if she was, or even that she had any obligation to try to save her child by calling 911. Of course Finnell's statement disagrees with Baez's opening statement in which he put forth what KC knows, but oh well... "justice" in America!

askfornina
08-08-2011, 10:17 AM
Accidents happen, and people who have no culpability or who just fell pray to a moment's distraction call 911. I will never be convinced that this was an accidental drowning, but IF it was and if KC didn't call 911 to try to revive the child and to show proof at the time that it was an accident, how is that not child abuse or neglect? She didn't try to save the child! She didn't do everything in her power to make sure the child couldn't be saved. Then, the baby was thrown away in a swamp, her child for whom she bore responsibility. How on any planet would THAT not constitute child abuse or neglect!?

opening statements are not evidence and should not be considered as evidence.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 10:27 AM
Of course because we certainly shouldn't be mad about any of the following.

We shouldn't be mad at poor KC who just...well never reported her child missing and/or dead, who threw her child away in a swamp.

KC, who blamed everybody but herself, threw innocent people under the bus FOR WHAT SHE DID and never accepted any responsibility for anything.

The DT who pulled every sleazy trick in the book to get a guilty woman off and set her free in society.

The prosecution didn't overcharge. They found a dead baby in a swamp never reported dead or missing by her mother, wrapped in duct tape, transported in her mother's car and a mother who seemed fine lying about the whole thing, sending police on wild goose chases and having moved on with her life until she was caught. If the jury thought it wasn't 1st degree, they could have gone with 2nd. If they didn't think it was 2nd, they could have gone with lower charges than that. I don't think they read the instructions far enough to understand that. They went with not guilty. KC is FREE today! Travesty of all travesties.

Well, I personally dont think air samples from an aired out car and one search for some obscure drug months prior proves she murdered her child to party, I mean thats what this all comes down to. If a prosecutor wants to hope the duct tape was already on her when she was dosed , its like, how would she have inhaled it if she was taped?

Had they explored the pool death option, this story could have been way different, imo.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 10:27 AM
I see, so the theory is that although FKC is a habitual liar and lies even when it isn't necessary, and in her own words is a great liar, in these two instances, the drowning and the abuse - these two times she told the truth? What are the chances of that?

Everyone was lying but FKC? FKC who received four guilty sentences for lying? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:
(jumping off your post)
And what was the basis for believing GA lied?
Was it because the woman who goes by two competely different names (not a nickname like her dad called,but an ALIAS),who gave a sworn statement to LE that she did not have an affair with GA ,then changed that story whan she got paid by the National Enquirer, now claims she did have an affair with GA? Is that the witness we are to believe to impeach GA ? :banghead:

coco puff
08-08-2011, 10:28 AM
"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/casey-anthony-shocker-caylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

Thanks for the links.

We really need to ask ourselves "why" would they claim that she does not know?

JB very clearly stated the events of the "accident". Surely she isn't saying that she can remember that part of Caylee's demise but then NOT remember anything else....

yolorado
08-08-2011, 10:30 AM
opening statements are not evidence and should not be considered as evidence.

Why on earth would KC NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?! Caylee was in her care. Why would NOT calling 911 to try to save the baby not be child abuse or neglect, if indeed some accident happened? If the jury believed there was an accidental drowning, as some who have spoken have inferred, how on earth could they not hold the mother of a child in her custody responsible for not summoning help which could have saved the child's life? Unless of course they bought the whole poor, damaged, wounded, not really mentally right KC, shouldn't have to act like a responsible adult because of mean ole penis wielding George thingie.... which was pretty much the OS, which seems to me was pretty much in the mind of some of these jurors... whether it should have been or not. How else would they not even hold KC culpable of abuse or neglect?

suzihawk
08-08-2011, 10:36 AM
Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

Could you please provide a link indicating that all evidence was in the jury room? Thanks.

natsound
08-08-2011, 10:36 AM
Don't you know these jury members are totally second guessing themselves now? Especially the two who voted first degree murder, then somehow did a 180 to vote not guilty?

:silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced: :silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced: :silenced::silenced:

yolorado
08-08-2011, 10:38 AM
Had they explored the pool death option, this story could have been way different, imo.
Why would they explore a pool death when KC insisted all along that there was no accident and that her child had been kidnapped? IIRC, when presented with an accident option early on, KC steadfastly denied it. They probably hadn't come across many pool deaths where the baby's face was wrapped in duct tape before she was thrown away in a swamp with no record of 911 ever being called.

askfornina
08-08-2011, 10:40 AM
Why on earth would KC NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?! Caylee was in her care. Why would NOT calling 911 to try to save the baby not be child abuse or neglect, if indeed some accident happened? If the jury believed there was an accidental drowning, as some who have spoken have inferred, how on earth could they not hold the mother of a child in her custody responsible for not summoning help which could have saved the child's life? Unless of course they bought the whole poor, damaged, wounded, not really mentally right KC, shouldn't have to act like a responsible adult because of mean ole penis wielding George thingie....

i can agree that if they were to find her guilty on one of the charges, the abuse charge would be it. but i can definitely see why they found her not guilty on that charge. frankly i am going to decline to argue back and forth about this, because it will make no difference. i was just responding to your previous post and making it clear that they could not consider the opening statement in deliberations, so they couldn't base the neglect charge verdict on the drowning theory. imo.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 10:40 AM
I forgot audio.Any audio ,like 911 call or interviews that were not video taped or if someone wore a wire ,would have to be played back for the jurors in the courtroom,IIRC.

yolorado
08-08-2011, 10:42 AM
Don't you know these jury members are totally second guessing themselves now? Especially the two who voted first degree murder, then somehow did a 180 to vote not guilty?

:silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced: :silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced: :silenced::silenced:

The human instinct to stick to one's guns once one has made such a momentous decision are strong. It's self-protective. I'd guess they persist in thinking they are right and the rest of us are wrong....and perhaps not even just wrong but over-emotionally and unconstitutionally wrong as well.

askfornina
08-08-2011, 10:42 AM
Could you please provide a link indicating that all evidence was in the jury room? Thanks.

there is some great information a little further up in the thread about the evidence that was in the jury room. :) it wasn't all of the evidence.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 10:42 AM
Well, I personally dont think air samples from an aired out car and one search for some obscure drug months prior proves she murdered her child to party, I mean thats what this all comes down to. If a prosecutor wants to hope the duct tape was already on her when she was dosed , its like, how would she have inhaled it if she was taped?

Had they explored the pool death option, this story could have been way different, imo.

Had FCA told the truth from the beginning, this story could have been way different. If you think that this whole trial came down to the search for an "obscure" drug and air samples and you are ignoring all of the other evidence ... well ... I can't say here what I really want to say.

logicalgirl
08-08-2011, 10:46 AM
there is some great information a little further up in the thread about the evidence that was in the jury room. :) it wasn't all of the evidence.

I gotta say I am impressed with the jurors ability to speed read then, and review evidence - more than 350 pieces in five hours - that would be 70 pieces an hour - they need to package that technique and sell it.

LambChop
08-08-2011, 10:50 AM
And from those jurors who did come forward it sounded more as if there was more of an argument centered around the death penalty more so than a discussion about the actual evidence which was not supposed to be discussed during deliberations. It's as if they skipped the whole deliberation process and went right to the penalty stage. No wonder they were confused. jmo

yolorado
08-08-2011, 10:50 AM
I've argued to long too. Bottom line for me- a woman culpable in the death of her child, who threw her own baby away in a swamp after covering her mouth in duct tape and lying about what happened is FREE in America today. FREE, free, free. That's what our system got us. Laws need to be changed. Jury service needs to be paid well enough to defray the hardship of serving but needs to be more or less mandatory if we are to continue believing the jury of our peer canard. The excusing of anyone who knows much about anything needs to stop. Selection should be more of a lottery. Changes of venue should not happen more than once in a lifetime. Sequestration should never happen. We either trust civilians as jurors from the community in which they live to go home at night and to not have been or not be unduly influenced by media and other surroundings, or we don't. If we don't, then it's time to start talking about something else. I'm still hoping that a non professional jury system can be salvaged, but if not, let's move on.

suzihawk
08-08-2011, 10:52 AM
there is some great information a little further up in the thread about the evidence that was in the jury room. :) it wasn't all of the evidence.

Thank you. I read that. But I'm looking for confirmation that ALL of the evidence was in the jury room as the OP stated - since he/she is such a stickler for every little detail. :)

suzihawk
08-08-2011, 10:54 AM
I gotta say I am impressed with the jurors ability to speed read then, and review evidence - more than 350 pieces in five hours - that would be 70 pieces an hour - they need to package that technique and sell it.

Not to mention that they didn't have one single question, including about the jury instructions they so clearly did not understand.

tsitra01
08-08-2011, 10:55 AM
What do yo think C-felon talks about now after her whole life story has been exposed as lies? I would imagine the only therapy she is going thru is to think up another life story to impress her future contacts. I feel sorry for anyone who crosses her path.

natsound
08-08-2011, 10:58 AM
I've argued to long too. Bottom line for me- a woman culpable in the death of her child, who threw her own baby away in a swamp after covering her mouth in duct tape and lying about what happened is FREE in America today. FREE, free, free. That's what our system got us. Laws need to be changed. Jury service needs to be paid well enough to defray the hardship of serving but needs to be more or less mandatory if we are to continue believing the jury of our peer canard. The excusing of anyone who knows much about anything needs to stop. Selection should be more of a lottery. Changes of venue should not happen more than once in a lifetime. Sequestration should never happen. We either trust civilians as jurors from the community in which they live to go home at night and to not have been or not be unduly influenced by media and other surroundings, or we don't. If we don't, then it's time to start talking about something else. I'm still hoping that a non professional jury system can be salvaged, but if not, let's move on.

I agree with what I bolded above. During jury selection, I said they should just grab people off the street for the jury. This whole vetting a jury is wrong, IMO.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 11:04 AM
Had FCA told the truth from the beginning, this story could have been way different. If you think that this whole trial came down to the search for an "obscure" drug and air samples and you are ignoring all of the other evidence ... well ... I can't say here what I really want to say.

Lets say no chloroform was found in the admitted cleaned and aired out trunk, then what what the State used as motive? An FBI guy said the levels were normal, the State went to some unexplored new science and tried to use that as proof. They didn't have her buying the stuff, they had nothing but speculation, and fortunately in this country, thats not enough to kill someone. I wish Casey had done the right thing and avoided all this, but she didn't. jmo

MissJames
08-08-2011, 11:06 AM
I've never used the term "forced" when discussing the jurors. I do think the foreman and JF used faulty reasoning,which may not have been intentional,but was never the less,wrong. I believe ,based on the foreman's own words,that he influenced the for guilt jurors to change their votes ,based on his own faulty reasoning. Rather than doing the right thing and wading back through the jury instructions,they used their own terms to come to a consensus.
I do believe that the NG jurors simply wore down the others by using inaccurate rules,but that's just my opinion. Until more of the jury speaks out,I can only go by the interviews the 3 or 4 have done. I think the truth will come out one day. I hope HHJP is looking into it.He has every reason to consider there may have been jury misconduct ,such as talking about the case before the deliberations started. I'm not saying it happened,but it should be investigated.

I believe there should have been 12 guilty votes for Felony 1, a hung jury at the very least. I will never be able to wrap my head around all 12 logically coming to the conclusion they had to vote NG.
Maybe the juror who was allegedly requesting $50,000 for an interview can explain it to us .

suzihawk
08-08-2011, 11:08 AM
Lets say no chloroform was found in the admitted cleaned and aired out trunk, then what what the State used as motive? An FBI guy said the levels were normal, the State went to some unexplored new science and tried to use that as proof. They didn't have her buying the stuff, they had nothing but speculation, and fortunately in this country, thats not enough to kill someone. I wish Casey had done the right thing and avoided all this, but she didn't. jmo

That wasn't the jury's only option. And they weren't in the penalty phase of the trial so that shouldn't have been a consideration at that point.

Sigh...

MissJames
08-08-2011, 11:10 AM
And from those jurors who did come forward it sounded more as if there was more of an argument centered around the death penalty more so than a discussion about the actual evidence which was not supposed to be discussed during deliberations. It's as if they skipped the whole deliberation process and went right to the penalty stage. No wonder they were confused. jmo

Also based on believing GA was lying,due to the OS and Krystal Holloway's (alias River Cruz) testimony ,which was impeached by the State with her sworn statement to LE.
Go figure :banghead:

Baznme
08-08-2011, 11:17 AM
So in your belief any child that accidentally dies is CULPABLE negligence and therefore is guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter? So any parent that let's their child out of their sight and the child drowns, chokes, runs out in the street and gets hit, etc. is punishable by builty of aggravated manslaughter. I'm not agreeing with that but you are entitled to your opinion.

It's all in your interpretation of the definition, I guess. I have a friend of the family that drove drunk one night with 2 friends in the car. They hit a telephone pole and one of the passengers was killed. The driver, (who was over the allowed level for alcohol in his system) was given 6 years in jail for aggravated manslaughter. It was an accident but due to negligence.

If you have a pool and a 2.5 yr. old. You're on the computer or you've fallen asleep and you didn't check to make sure the doors were locked and the child was inside with you before you went on with whatever you wanted to do, then yes, you are negligent because you didn't take all precautions to ensure the safety of your child.

It would be the same if they were in the backyard already and she got on the phone, not paying attention to what the baby was doing and Caylee climbed that ladder and she drowned. YOU can be held responsible because you did not ensure the safety of your child.

She could have been held legally responsible. Lots of families that have lost children this way were not prosecuted and the drowning deemed "accidental". If this is "culpable negligence" and if Florida courts were to exercise the law as it is written, there would be a lot more people to face the charges. Many don't get to the courts and are written up in police reports as an "accident".

That being said, I don't believe that's what happened here. Too many of FCA's activities in March that indicate to me this was planned, far in advance and so the point of the alleged "accidental" drowning is moot IMHO.

LambChop
08-08-2011, 11:20 AM
Lets say no chloroform was found in the admitted cleaned and aired out trunk, then what what the State used as motive? An FBI guy said the levels were normal, the State went to some unexplored new science and tried to use that as proof. They didn't have her buying the stuff, they had nothing but speculation, and fortunately in this country, thats not enough to kill someone. I wish Casey had done the right thing and avoided all this, but she didn't. jmo

I think the difference was that there were two totally different pieces of carpet and packaged differently. One packaged in a bag for the FBI which allowed off gasing and the other in a metal container which did not allow off gasing. Chloroform gases dissipate very quickly. The fact that Dr. Vass found such high levels in his sample only proves that there were even higher levels at the time the chloroform was there, such as 100% pure chloroform on that sample so it may have been from spillage. Had the FBI gotten Dr. Vass' sample their findings may have been much higher. Also wasn't the testing done differently. One test was solely done on the carpet itself and the other was done on the gases emitted from the carpet sample.

This jury would have never given her death. But they did need to find a charge for the reponsibility in the death of her child. KC lied about the death of her daughter. The only reason to ever lie is to hide the truth. Something this jury considered with little, if any weight. jmo

cityslick
08-08-2011, 11:21 AM
I spoke to a few people who never really followed the case, just got their info from what they read and talked about among others and almost every single one of them came away with the opinion that they think she had something to do with the death of her daughter but the prosecution failed big time in proving it.

Now, I'm not sure where those opinions are coming from (media?) but all of them (like 6-7 people) agreed the prosecution did not fully prove that she did it.

I thought it was interesting on what public perception may be.

SailorMoon
08-08-2011, 11:24 AM
Disagree - the Pinellas County 12 should hang their heads in shame for a long time -- they let a murderer walk free and were too worried about who would talk to the media instead of looking at the evidence. Linda Drane Burdick and Jeff Ashton had to have felt punked when they heard the verdict. I did - I mean are you kidding me???

margE
08-08-2011, 11:25 AM
I'm the poster that asked for proof. And yet to have seen any that Cheney stated "she is obviously guilty" and have only seen personal interpretation as to what he actually did say means.


I guess you didn't read enough. My post was not for you..

MissJames
08-08-2011, 11:25 AM
I agree with what I bolded above. During jury selection, I said they should just grab people off the street for the jury. This whole vetting a jury is wrong, IMO.

I believe it was LoneTraveler who suggested that the jurors had to go through training and take a test ,before they could serve. I like that idea. Even before they are assigned to a certain case,they should go through training and take a test.
Geez,the law is much more complicated than it was 200+ years ago .Science has changed evidence that comes in.

I'd like to see training and testing implemented
fewer hardship excuses.Let's go back to serving on a jury as a civic duty and have some pride in the system.
NO compensation for jurors ,with the exception of the stipend from the courts.No Disney World ,no book deals,no paid licensing fees ,etc.

This was a big wake up call to our country . Well over one million citizens signed Caylee's Law in response to the NG verdict in the first 5 days . It's up to 1,287,000 + now. I haven't seen another petition about anything come close to those numbers.

JMO

Chablis
08-08-2011, 11:26 AM
I think the difference was that there were two totally different pieces of carpet and packaged differently. One packaged in a bag for the FBI which allowed off gasing and the other in a metal container which did not allow off gasing. Chloroform gases dissipate very quickly. The fact that Dr. Vass found such high levels in his sample only proves that there were even higher levels at the time the chloroform was there, such as 100% pure chloroform on that sample so it may have been from spillage. Had the FBI gotten Dr. Vass' sample their findings may have been much higher. Also wasn't the testing done differently. One test was solely done on the carpet itself and the other was done on the gases emitted from the carpet sample.

This jury would have never given her death. But they did need to find a charge for the reponsibility in the death of her child. KC lied about the death of her daughter. The only reason to ever lie is to hide the truth. Something this jury considered with little, if any weight. jmo


I guess I just am in the mindset and its easier for me to believe the FBI. Casey is lazy and there were so many more ways to kill her child or make her sleep then making chloroform. I think the jury does think Casey is responsible but the State had to prove it, and they didn't, one search and aired out samples was not proof at all. One day of partying was not enough motive. I too was left with the States closing thinking, thats it? Live and learn I guess. jmo

LambChop
08-08-2011, 11:29 AM
It's all in your interpretation of the definition, I guess. I have a friend of the family that drove drunk one night with 2 friends in the car. They hit a telephone pole and one of the passengers was killed. The driver, (who was over the allowed level for alcohol in his system) was given 6 years in jail for aggravated manslaughter. It was an accident but due to negligence.

If you have a pool and a 2.5 yr. old. You're on the computer or you've fallen asleep and you didn't check to make sure the doors were locked and the child was inside with you before you went on with whatever you wanted to do, then yes, you are negligent because you didn't take all precautions to ensure the safety of your child.

It would be the same if they were in the backyard already and she got on the phone, not paying attention to what the baby was doing and Caylee climbed that ladder and she drowned. YOU can be held responsible because you did not ensure the safety of your child.

She could have been held legally responsible. Lots of families that have lost children this way were not prosecuted and the drowning deemed "accidental". If this is "culpable negligence" and if Florida courts were to exercise the law as it is written, there would be a lot more people to face the charges. Many don't get to the courts and are written up in police reports as an "accident".

That being said, I don't believe that's what happened here. Too many of FCA's activities in March that indicate to me this was planned, far in advance and so the point of the alleged "accidental" drowning is moot IMHO.

I don't think LE, for the most part, are inclined to charge families when a child drowns. They feel the family has suffered enough. Unless they walk into a home and find the custodian drunk or high on drugs I doubt you would see any charges brought against them.

I do think that if you have the money to buy a pool you should also have the money to equip your pool with an alarm. They are fairly cheap. Something that did bother me, too, was the lack of an alarm on the A's slider. In CA if you have a pool you have to put alarms on your doors that lead to the pool area. My mother had to have them and my parents were in their 80's no children, grandchildren living within the State and they still were required to have them by law. jmo

Aedrys
08-08-2011, 11:29 AM
I think the difference was that there were two totally different pieces of carpet and packaged differently. One packaged in a bag for the FBI which allowed off gasing and the other in a metal container which did not allow off gasing. Chloroform gases dissipate very quickly. The fact that Dr. Vass found such high levels in his sample only proves that there were even higher levels at the time the chloroform was there, such as 100% pure chloroform on that sample so it may have been from spillage. Had the FBI gotten Dr. Vass' sample their findings may have been much higher. Also wasn't the testing done differently. One test was solely done on the carpet itself and the other was done on the gases emitted from the carpet sample.

This jury would have never given her death. But they did need to find a charge for the reponsibility in the death of her child. KC lied about the death of her daughter. The only reason to ever lie is to hide the truth. Something this jury considered with little, if any weight. jmo

I agree with you, except the SA got the FBI guy to clarify, and had to almost pull teeth to get it out of him, the fact that he found any chloroform in the carpet sample at all indicated that there must have been massive quantities of chloroform in that trunk. He was surprised to find any at all because chloroform is volatile and evaporates quickly. So yes, the FBI found what he classified as normal levels, BUT even those normal levels shouldn't have been there since chloroform evaporates. That made his test and Vass's match up. Vass found exceeding levels, and in effect, the FBI guy found it too because NONE was supposed to be found at all. But you're right, one tested carpet and one tested air. Since chloroform evaporates, then logically, more would be found in the air than in the carpet sample. BTW, I can't remember the exact words of the FBI guy, but I summarized what he said. I remember because I felt so disappointed at first because it didn't match Vass, and then when the SA made him clarify it, I had an AHA moment. It made sense.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 11:31 AM
Lets say no chloroform was found in the admitted cleaned and aired out trunk, then what what the State used as motive? An FBI guy said the levels were normal, the State went to some unexplored new science and tried to use that as proof. They didn't have her buying the stuff, they had nothing but speculation, and fortunately in this country, thats not enough to kill someone. I wish Casey had done the right thing and avoided all this, but she didn't. jmo

The State does not have to prove motive or "why" she killed her kid, just that she did. You, like many others, are looking for the smoking gun. There are so many ways FCA could have gotten the ingredients to make chloroform and FCA is the one who did the "how to make chloroform" search on the net. We can argue the presence of chloroform in the trunk until we're both blue in the face. That is not the only piece of evidence that should have convicted FCA. Everyone is ignoring the consciousness of guilt evidence, INCLUDING the jury. Read up on consciousness of guilt and tell me that if should not have been included in the jury's decision in this case.

And as common sense tells me, no one in the case of an accident fails to call 911 and dumps their kid in a swamp in garbage bags. I repeat ... NO ONE, especially a loving mom as FCA was testified to be.

The jury that convicted Scott Petersen never had a smoking gun, either but was able to connect the dots and rightfully put him away for good.

And one more thing ... DNA was once a new science and lookie now ... it's used in almost every murder trial. I personally believe in the air sample science ... air is made up of chemical compunds and new compounds can be introduced into the air. Dr. Vass has 15 years of experience in decomposing bodies and the chemicals released into the air from decomposition. Who from the defense can make this claim ?

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 11:32 AM
Ah..hmm...AZ is not a criminal lawyer..... and does not practise in Florida and the evidence was still all laid out on the evidence table......when the verdict was read.

1st BBM: not sure what you're referring to here -- I don't think I referenced anything pertaining to fellow member AZ.

2nd BBM: Please reference this video of the verdict being read. at 6:34 or there about. It clearly shows no exhibits on the table in the courtroom.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8232571

Furthermore, several news sources do state that over 400 exhibits were received in the jury room.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07...day-63160.html

"The jury received the more than 400 pieces of evidence in the jury room that have been by both sides in the case since the trial began in late May.

But jurors will be brought into open court should they request to view any of the video evidence, a court official said. Equipment for video viewing is not available in the deliberation room. The jury has the ability to send questions to Judge Perry via the court deputies, but had yet to do so."


And there are more sources:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-...-resume-in-Fla
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=13997260
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21004755633971/

MissJames
08-08-2011, 11:33 AM
I spoke to a few people who never really followed the case, just got their info from what they read and talked about among others and almost every single one of them came away with the opinion that they think she had something to do with the death of her daughter but the prosecution failed big time in proving it.

Now, I'm not sure where those opinions are coming from (media?) but all of them (like 6-7 people) agreed the prosecution did not fully prove that she did it.

I thought it was interesting on what public perception may be.

BBM

I'm repeating ,but looking at public perception ,ONE MILLION ,TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND,ONE HUNDRED + people have signed CAYLEE'S LAW because the jurors needed it spelled out for them.

Have you asked the 6-7 if they watched the entire trial?

mimmy03
08-08-2011, 11:43 AM
Lets say no chloroform was found in the admitted cleaned and aired out trunk, then what what the State used as motive? An FBI guy said the levels were normal, the State went to some unexplored new science and tried to use that as proof. They didn't have her buying the stuff, they had nothing but speculation, and fortunately in this country, thats not enough to kill someone. I wish Casey had done the right thing and avoided all this, but she didn't. jmo

To me the chloroform doesn't even matter. The way the body was disposed, the duct tape, the stench in the car, and the lying to her parents and LE is what convinces me. How Caylee was murdered is irrelevant really.

IfIMay
08-08-2011, 11:44 AM
Lets say no chloroform was found in the admitted cleaned and aired out trunk, then what what the State used as motive? An FBI guy said the levels were normal, the State went to some unexplored new science and tried to use that as proof. They didn't have her buying the stuff, they had nothing but speculation, and fortunately in this country, thats not enough to kill someone. I wish Casey had done the right thing and avoided all this, but she didn't. jmo

Chloroform would be a method of killing, but not motive. Motive was to be free of responsibility and to get back at her mother who obviously cared more for Caylee than Casey (in her own warped mind anyway).

LambChop
08-08-2011, 11:46 AM
Why not? her father lies too. The jury instruction regarding witness lying states you may believe all, some, or none of a witness testimony. I doesn't say this just applies to the defendant.

But being a defendent, wouldn't that be obvious that lying or telling the truth would be of benefit to your case. Other than the gas can GA did not give conflicting testimony. GA said Caylee did not drown while he was home on the 16th, it just did not happen. He sounded as if his answer was honest, not like he hemmed and hawed about the gas cans. One of the charges for KC was 4 counts of lying to LE about the whereabouts of her daughter. And yet the jury fixated on a possibility that GA "might" not be telling the truth. On a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the highest probably of it being a lie, a normal person with common sense would say GA could probably be a 2 where KC would be a 10. Common sense would tell you the only person on trial is KC and the only person who would benefit from the lie would be KC. jmo

Chablis
08-08-2011, 11:50 AM
Chloroform would be a method of killing, but not motive. Motive was to be free of responsibility and to get back at her mother who obviously cared more for Caylee than Casey (in her own warped mind anyway).

I can believe this for sure, so why didn't the State pursue this route and not a few pictures of one night saying the child died so she could party? Being mad at your overbearing mother is more of a believable motive to me then partying. jmo

mimmy03
08-08-2011, 11:51 AM
The State does not have to prove motive or "why" she killed her kid, just that she did. You, like many others, are looking for the smoking gun. There are so many ways FCA could have gotten the ingredients to make chloroform and FCA is the one who did the "how to make chloroform" search on the net. We can argue the presence of chloroform in the trunk until we're both blue in the face. That is not the only piece of evidence that should have convicted FCA. Everyone is ignoring the consciousness of guilt evidence, INCLUDING the jury. Read up on consciousness of guilt and tell me that if should not have been included in the jury's decision in this case.

And as common sense tells me, no one in the case of an accident fails to call 911 and dumps their kid in a swamp in garbage bags. I repeat ... NO ONE, especially a loving mom as FCA was testified to be.

The jury that convicted Scott Petersen never had a smoking gun, either but was able to connect the dots and rightfully put him away for good.

And one more thing ... DNA was once a new science and lookie now ... it's used in almost every murder trial. I personally believe in the air sample science ... air is made up of chemical compunds and new compounds can be introduced into the air. Dr. Vass has 15 years of experience in decomposing bodies and the chemicals released into the air from decomposition. Who from the defense can make this claim ?

And any normal human being whose child died by accident would have taken the many opportunities LE presented during questioning to come clean and own up to their child dying accidentally. But instead she made the choice to lie to police and send them on a wild goose chase looking for an imaginary nanny. Anything to turn the investigation away from her. Only guilty people do that.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 11:57 AM
I guess I just am in the mindset and its easier for me to believe the FBI. Casey is lazy and there were so many more ways to kill her child or make her sleep then making chloroform. I think the jury does think Casey is responsible but the State had to prove it, and they didn't, one search and aired out samples was not proof at all. One day of partying was not enough motive. I too was left with the States closing thinking, thats it? Live and learn I guess. jmo

As stated earlier in the upthread, the FBI did not receive the same sample as Dr. Vass so that would not be a true analogy of their reporting. Had they then switched the samples between themselves and retested, I think the chloroform evidence would have held up. But......always a but, I know.....I don't think it came from anything FCA made, I believe because the chloroform levels (in the carpet) were different according to which part they took the sample from, that Dr. Vass got the section that Caylee's body was in contact with and the FBI did not. That would explain the fluctuations.


I was watching the story of Sandra Cantu the other evening and found out that after administering a drug to make her drowsy, that she (Melissa Huckaby) used plain old "rubbing alcohol" on a rag that displaced all oxygen and held it to her face until her heart stopped beating. I did not know until then that "rubbing alcohol" displaces all oxygen and you can asphyxiate someone that way. My thoughts then ran to this case with that information. It's possible that the chloroform was the byproduct of the decomposition and that's all. Not to diminish the seriousness of its' presence, but maybe looking at the presence of it as a murder weapon is where the biggest error was. Possible something as simple as rubbing alcohol and then duct tape would accomplish the elimination of an unwanted child. I'm leaning toward this act occurring in Caylee's room during naptime, then carried to the car and put into the trunk. The duct tape, I believe went on the next day while the car was backed into the garage.

Just thinking out loud.

logicalgirl
08-08-2011, 12:02 PM
As stated earlier in the upthread, the FBI did not receive the same sample as Dr. Vass so that would not be a true analogy of their reporting. Had they then switched the samples between themselves and retested, I think the chloroform evidence would have held up. But......always a but, I know.....I don't think it came from anything FCA made, I believe because the chloroform levels (in the carpet) were different according to which part they took the sample from, that Dr. Vass got the section that Caylee's body was in contact with and the FBI did not. That would explain the fluctuations.


I was watching the story of Sandra Cantu the other evening and found out that after administering a drug to make her drowsy, that she (Melissa Huckaby) used plain old "rubbing alcohol" on a rag that displaced all oxygen and held it to her face until her heart stopped beating. I did not know until then that "rubbing alcohol" displaces all oxygen and you can asphyxiate someone that way. My thoughts then ran to this case with that information. It's possible that the chloroform was the byproduct of the decomposition and that's all. Not to diminish the seriousness of its' presence, but maybe looking at the presence of it as a murder weapon is where the biggest error was. Possible something as simple as rubbing alcohol and then duct tape would accomplish the elimination of an unwanted child. I'm leaning toward this act occurring in Caylee's room during naptime, then carried to the car and put into the trunk. The duct tape, I believe went on the next day while the car was backed into the garage.

Just thinking out loud.

Hmm - 24 hours in the heat in Florida - doubt by that time the duct tape would have stuck....

Baznme
08-08-2011, 12:06 PM
Hmm - 24 hours in the heat in Florida - doubt by that time the duct tape would have stuck....

Could explain why so much duct tape and how it was attached though. Please don't get hung up on a detail such as what I suggested regarding the duct tape. I wanted to bring up the "rubbing alcohol" as a possibility as everyone has it in their home and it's a cheap chemical to access and evaporates completely. Right down her lane, KWIM?

IfIMay
08-08-2011, 12:09 PM
I can believe this for sure, so why didn't the State pursue this route and not a few pictures of one night saying the child died so she could party? Being mad at your overbearing mother is more of a believable motive to me then partying. jmo

They did. But it would take inference and critical thinking to "get it" I guess. You know putting 2+2 together.

coco puff
08-08-2011, 12:12 PM
I spoke to a few people who never really followed the case, just got their info from what they read and talked about among others and almost every single one of them came away with the opinion that they think she had something to do with the death of her daughter but the prosecution failed big time in proving it.

Now, I'm not sure where those opinions are coming from (media?) but all of them (like 6-7 people) agreed the prosecution did not fully prove that she did it.

I thought it was interesting on what public perception may be.

I can't even find 6 or 7 people (not on-line) that even watched enough of the trial to know WHAT the state presented. I can't imagine not following the case but committing that much time to watching the whole trial.

margE
08-08-2011, 12:15 PM
Could explain why so much duct tape and how it was attached though. Please don't get hung up on a detail such as what I suggested regarding the duct tape. I wanted to bring up the "rubbing alcohol" as a possibility as everyone has it in their home and it's a cheap chemical to access and evaporates completely. Right down her lane, KWIM?

Your post is very interesting. I never knew this either about rubbing alcohol.

A few days ago, my teenage daughter had a dentist appointment to recheck a tooth she had a root canal on. He told us he would have to retreat the tooth. And explained, he uses chloroform to do so..hmmm Now I may be slow, but I never knew this. Of course as soon as he told us this, my thoughts went here..and all over the place...

Boytwnmom
08-08-2011, 12:18 PM
about a drowning...not one...NADA...ZILCH. The only mention of drowning came from the supposedly non-evidentiary Opening Statement. The only TESTIMONY relative to "drowning" was that there was a pool and a ladder and a house with a door. OK then, any child killed and whose remains were concealed until skeletonized, who lived in a house with a pool, assuming the hosue has a door to walk out to the pool, can and should be considered to have drowned.

There was just as much EVIDENCE that Laci Peterosn drowned. After all she washed up on shore. Maybe she went for a swim. No cause of death could be shown nor time of death nor location of death. So, yeah, the jury could decide she probably drowned. The only difference was in that case there was a jury with common sense and the fortitude to perform their solemn duty.

Absurdity breeds absurdity...


But being a defendent, wouldn't that be obvious that lying or telling the truth would be of benefit to your case. Other than the gas can GA did not give conflicting testimony. GA said Caylee did not drown while he was home on the 16th, it just did not happen. He sounded as if his answer was honest, not like he hemmed and hawed about the gas cans. One of the charges for KC was 4 counts of lying to LE about the whereabouts of her daughter. And yet the jury fixated on a possibility that GA "might" not be telling the truth. On a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the highest probably of it being a lie, a normal person with common sense would say GA could probably be a 2 where KC would be a 10. Common sense would tell you the only person on trial is KC and the only person who would benefit from the lie would be KC. jmo

Chablis
08-08-2011, 12:30 PM
Could explain why so much duct tape and how it was attached though. Please don't get hung up on a detail such as what I suggested regarding the duct tape. I wanted to bring up the "rubbing alcohol" as a possibility as everyone has it in their home and it's a cheap chemical to access and evaporates completely. Right down her lane, KWIM?

Wouldnt holding a pillow over the childs head, smothering them do the same thing as well?

logicalgirl
08-08-2011, 12:38 PM
Could explain why so much duct tape and how it was attached though. Please don't get hung up on a detail such as what I suggested regarding the duct tape. I wanted to bring up the "rubbing alcohol" as a possibility as everyone has it in their home and it's a cheap chemical to access and evaporates completely. Right down her lane, KWIM?

Oh yeah, the chloroform was something I was never much hung up on - would have been just as easy to hold a pillow over her until she passed out, then tape up her face to make sure. But I definitely did not know that about rubbing alcohol, just that if you drink very much of it - it will surely kill you. And it is a great theory. Bet that one would have popped up on an internet search also.

Which does not mean I discredit Dr. Vass - I loved him and his work. And I feel very sure his sniffer will be part of routine csi material in five years down the road, now it has passed a Frye hearing.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 12:42 PM
They did. But it would take inference and critical thinking to "get it" I guess. You know putting 2+2 together.

I will never get why the State did not use that fight and proof that Casey stole from her grandparents, and the next day the child is never seen? Way better theory than killing to party, I think a jury would have seen this a lot different had this been presented. jmo

IfIMay
08-08-2011, 12:44 PM
Oh yeah, the chloroform was something I was never much hung up on - would have been just as easy to hold a pillow over her until she passed out, then tape up her face to make sure. But I definitely did not know that about rubbing alcohol, just that if you drink very much of it - it will surely kill you. And it is a great theory. Bet that one would have popped up on an internet search also.

Which does not mean I discredit Dr. Vass - I loved him and his work. And I feel very sure his sniffer will be part of routine csi material in five years down the road, now it has passed a Frye hearing.

I think I choose to believe the chloroform because:

1. I believe Dr. Vass.
2. It would be a much easier way to die for Caylee than the alternatives. Poor Caylee.. looking up into that face o' fisties while her egg donor smothers her... ::shudders::

IfIMay
08-08-2011, 12:47 PM
I will never get why the State did not use that fight and proof that Casey stole from her grandparents, and the next day the child is never seen? Way better theory than killing to party, I think a jury would have seen this a lot different had this been presented. jmo

Because they believe in the LAW.. no one would testify to it truthfully. Lee telling Jessie that CA told him is hearsay.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 01:02 PM
I think I choose to believe the chloroform because:

1. I believe Dr. Vass.
2. It would be a much easier way to die for Caylee than the alternatives. Poor Caylee.. looking up into that face o' fisties while her egg donor smothers her... ::shudders::

Oh yeah, the chloroform was something I was never much hung up on - would have been just as easy to hold a pillow over her until she passed out, then tape up her face to make sure. But I definitely did not know that about rubbing alcohol, just that if you drink very much of it - it will surely kill you. And it is a great theory. Bet that one would have popped up on an internet search also.

Which does not mean I discredit Dr. Vass - I loved him and his work. And I feel very sure his sniffer will be part of routine csi material in five years down the road, now it has passed a Frye hearing.


I must not have worded my post very well so I will attempt to say this a different way. I too, believe in Dr. Vass's work and testimony but, I think his findings of chloroform came from Caylee's body in the trunk. Not the use of chloroform ON Caylee, thus the reason the levels were higher on one sample than the one the FBI received to test. I'm thinking suffocation was cause of death but, how? Not an "accident" but deliberate suffocation. Drowning or was an agent used?

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:09 PM
I see, so the theory is that although FKC is a habitual liar and lies even when it isn't necessary, and in her own words is a great liar, in these two instances, the drowning and the abuse - these two times she told the truth? What are the chances of that?

Everyone was lying but FKC? FKC who received four guilty sentences for lying? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

Of course she lied. She admitted lying. However, it doesn't mean she did in fact lie about everything. Should we assume since GA and CA lied about some things they absolutely lied about everything?:

from GA depo

pg 146
Night of the 15th. Caylee was in bed for sure..doesn't recall Casey being there... up til 12:30 or 1 but doesn't recall Casey coming home.

page 150
Morning of the 16th. Normal day. Caylee up 7:30-8. She seen Cindy before she left (although Cindy says she did not, she just heard them breathing through the door). Casey got up LATER.

pg 158-159
the whole "I didn't put tape on there" crap.

pg 179
says Caylee was wearing black...but then changes it to pink

pg 184
Afternoon of the 16th. After Caylee and Casey left at 12:50, stated he had no contact by phone, message, in person, with them at least a few days or up to a week had a brief cell phone conversation. When in fact he called Casey at 3:03 on the 16th. Why did he call? Why didn't he just say he called?

pg 194
Afternoon of the 24th. States "by the time I got to the end of the car right where the passenger taillight is, she opened the trunk and says here's your f'in gas cans." You think he didn't look inside the trunk?

pg 196
the 24th. He states "Most definitely did not have duct tape on it. I'm positive" Which is it George?

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the picture.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 01:13 PM
Because they believe in the LAW.. no one would testify to it truthfully. Lee telling Jessie that CA told him is hearsay.

Ok, but what about the money she stole from her grandfather? Do you really think they could not get that and show that and then ask Cindy if she approached Casey, because they asked Cindy all sorts of stuff, even insinuating incest between her kids. The State could have presented this, the last few hours the child was alive, and things maybe could have been different.

jmo

logicalgirl
08-08-2011, 01:15 PM
I must not have worded my post very well so I will attempt to say this a different way. I too, believe in Dr. Vass's work and testimony but, I think his findings of chloroform came from Caylee's body in the trunk. Not the use of chloroform ON Caylee, thus the reason the levels were higher on one sample than the one the FBI received to test. I'm thinking suffocation was cause of death but, how? Now I'm beginning to sound like a juror, so I'll quit.

I know - all this arguing about the mountain of circumstantial evidence is mind bending - particularly when each piece if presented as being a "falsehood".

When the State rested, I was overwhelmed with the amount of evidence that spoke to FKC's guilt and not one iota of that has changed, including listening to Baez's silly fairy tales, which only brought a sense of disgust but not surprise, as by the time the trial arrived - "we knew him well".

I just see too many agendas here, although I don't know the purpose for them. And I see too much evidence of not reviewing or understanding the evidence in this trial - let alone the ability to actually analyze and come to a logical conclusion.

I'll just leave it as "there are none so blind as those who will not see" and in the words of Margaret Thatcher - "I understand you believe what you believe, but you are quite wrong you know."

That's it for me in this thread. I remember something from a women's group I used to attend years ago, which was a very wise Indian piece of wisdom. If you sit in a group, and the group tells an individual the truth three times, and it still isn't accepted - the group should get up and walk away. There are better ways to waste your time.

IfIMay
08-08-2011, 01:18 PM
Ok, but what about the money she stole from her grandfather? Do you really think they could not get that and show that and then ask Cindy if she approached Casey, because they asked Cindy all sorts of stuff, even insinuating incest between her kids. The State could have presented this, the last few hours the child was alive, and things maybe could have been different.

jmo

Prior bad acts. Not allowed. Rules of law and all. Defense would have had to open the door to "character" for them to present it. State has to play by the rules... not so the unethical defense. Personally, I thought they opened the door, but I guess the State and Judge Perry thought it was borderline and chose not to go through it.

Ethics and all. And what the heck would Cindy say on the stand? Which version? She's already perjured herself once.

GiantPickle
08-08-2011, 01:18 PM
In charge #3 the neglict had to be proven that it was Culpable.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable.

See, now I think it is. If you know you have a pool in your backyard and know how attracted to said pool Caylee is and you know that Caylee can open doors (which is all things the DT said - so in effect KC said), and you do not watch your child, you are completely and utterly disregarding her safety.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:19 PM
So now the State is in cahoots with NG ? And please provide an interview with any member of the State's team where expressed an overwhelming confidence in the conviction of FCA.

http://www.wesh.com/r/28460647/detail.html

JA interview with Matt Lauer

Aedrys
08-08-2011, 01:20 PM
I must not have worded my post very well so I will attempt to say this a different way. I too, believe in Dr. Vass's work and testimony but, I think his findings of chloroform came from Caylee's body in the trunk. Not the use of chloroform ON Caylee, thus the reason the levels were higher on one sample than the one the FBI received to test. I'm thinking suffocation was cause of death but, how? Not an "accident" but deliberate suffocation. Drowning or was an agent used?

No, there wasn't a difference in the way this was clarified by the FBI agent, who even then didn't articulate it well enough. What was found in the air and carpet was similar in levels. The carpet results mirrored the air results as normal levels SHOULD NOT have been in the carpet at all since chlorofrom evaporates. Since the FBI found normal levels, that means A LOT MORE HAD TO BE THERE to leave behind ANYTING in the carpet, much less normal levels of chloroform.

Again, chloroform evaporates. Normal levels would have evaporated and been gone by the time the FBI tested the carpet. They STILL found normal levels. This means there was a LOT MORE than normal levels in that carpet originally, which evaporated and the FBI only found what was left. Ergo, their results, on what was left in the carpet, not the totality of what was in the carpet originally, were a lot less than Vass's because they can't test for what originally was there. But Vass found it in the air tests because that's where all that evaporated chloroform went to, the air.

So originally, there were NOT normal levels of chloroform in that car trunk. Period. I guess if some here can't get that, then maybe the jury couldn't either (and this isn't directed at just one person because a lot keep saying normal levels and differences in the carpet and air samples). I don't think the state made this clear to the jury, and I think they got stuck on "normal" levels and the carpet and air samples being widely different than each other than thinking about what it means that normal levels were still there in the carpet sample when chloroform is volatile and evaporates (and quickly evaporates, for that matter)! *sigh*

GiantPickle
08-08-2011, 01:24 PM
Accidents happen, and people who have no culpability or who just fell pray to a moment's distraction call 911. I will never be convinced that this was an accidental drowning, but IF it was and if KC didn't call 911 to try to revive the child and to show proof at the time that it was an accident, how is that not child abuse or neglect? She didn't try to save the child! She didn't do everything in her power to make sure the child couldn't be saved. Then, the baby was thrown away in a swamp, her child for whom she bore responsibility. How on any planet would THAT not constitute child abuse or neglect!?

That's my whole horror with this event...if you were to believe her story (which I dont) she chose her own "safety" over any chance Caylee may have had of being revived. She decided she'd rather not ruffle her Dad's/Mom's feathers than get any medical care??

Thats why I believe Caylee had been in the pool a long time before Casey found her....that's why she had to go in to cover up mode. It wasn't an "innocent...baby slipped away while I was showering" type of event...it was gross neglect that was obvious given the condition of the body.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 01:24 PM
Prior bad acts. Not allowed. Rules of law and all. Defense would have had to open the door to "character" for them to present it. State has to play by the rules... not so the unethical defense. Personally, I thought they opened the door, but I guess the State and Judge Perry thought it was borderline and chose not to go through it.

Ethics and all. And what the heck would Cindy say on the stand? Which version? She's already perjured herself once.

Well, I am pretty sure they talked about Caseys prior bad acts of sometimes smoking pot, so I think they could have have asked Cindy about it, how would it make sense she could be asked about her kids maybe having relations but they couldnt ask her about money and a fight? A fight that happened right before the child disappears, but then the State argues she killed to party?

cityslick
08-08-2011, 01:24 PM
BBM

I'm repeating ,but looking at public perception ,ONE MILLION ,TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND,ONE HUNDRED + people have signed CAYLEE'S LAW because the jurors needed it spelled out for them.

Have you asked the 6-7 if they watched the entire trial?

Do you seriously believe that every single one of the people that signed for the law believe the prosecution succeeded in proving guilt? I strongly disagree with that. A good many probably signed it because they believe the existing law is vague and that more should be done to punish those who do not report their child missing. It has nothing to do with whether they think prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

No I didn't ask if they watched the whole trial, probably not. But they knew enough about the case from what was read and heard to form an opinion. Take that for what you will.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 01:26 PM
Of course she lied. She admitted lying. However, it doesn't mean she did in fact lie about everything. Should we assume since GA and CA lied about some things they absolutely lied about everything?:

from GA depo

pg 146
Night of the 15th. Caylee was in bed for sure..doesn't recall Casey being there... up til 12:30 or 1 but doesn't recall Casey coming home.

page 150
Morning of the 16th. Normal day. Caylee up 7:30-8. She seen Cindy before she left (although Cindy says she did not, she just heard them breathing through the door). Casey got up LATER.

pg 158-159
the whole "I didn't put tape on there" crap.

pg 179
says Caylee was wearing black...but then changes it to pink

pg 184
Afternoon of the 16th. After Caylee and Casey left at 12:50, stated he had no contact by phone, message, in person, with them at least a few days or up to a week had a brief cell phone conversation. When in fact he called Casey at 3:03 on the 16th. Why did he call? Why didn't he just say he called?

pg 194
Afternoon of the 24th. States "by the time I got to the end of the car right where the passenger taillight is, she opened the trunk and says here's your f'in gas cans." You think he didn't look inside the trunk?

pg 196
the 24th. He states "Most definitely did not have duct tape on it. I'm positive" Which is it George?

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the picture.

True, FCA didn't lie about everything. When she said "I'm such a great liar", she was telling the truth.

GA's deposition was taken in Aug '09, more than a year after the disappearance of Caylee. Do you remember what you or a loved one was wearing a year ago or what day you cut your your grass ? I'd be willing to bet if I asked you a simple fact about a date a year ago and then asked you again two years later, the answer might be different. Point is, what GA testified to in his depo might have varied slightly to what he testified to on the stand.

One more thing ... GA was not on trial and everything you mention up above is irrelevant to the evidence presented against FCA.

Aedrys
08-08-2011, 01:26 PM
Well, I am pretty sure they talked about Caseys prior bad acts of sometimes smoking pot, so I think they could have have asked Cindy about it, how would it make sense she could be asked about her kids maybe having relations but they couldnt ask her about money and a fight? A fight that happened right before the child disappears, but then the State argues she killed to party?

I believe she was asked about this in a deposition, and she denied it and continues to deny the fight. She turned that night into a cuddle session between her, Casey, and Caylee, all of them watching the video of the visit with her father earlier that day - she said this in court when asked about that night. She lied, and left no way for the state to use the fight in court. Even the neighbors can't say for sure that they heard arguing on the night of the 15th. The state cannot verify anything in court with hearsay only.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:29 PM
Why NOT!? She was the child's mom. The child was in her care. Why the heck would she not know EXACTLY what happened!? If she were not grossly negligent, why would she make no effort to protect or save the child, and if she did not, wouldn't that EXACTLY constitute child abuse or neglect? Why would she lie to protect herself rather than getting to the bottom of what actually happened if she herself didn't cause it? It seems as if Finnell would like (if indeed she does believe what she says) for some sort of of diminished capacity to be sneaked in under the radar, even though KC was found legally sane to stand trial. Pretty much though, that's what happened. Seemingly, the jury didn't want to hold KC responsible for anything. They didn't seem to think she needed to report her child missing...if she was, or dead from an accident...if she was, or even that she had any obligation to try to save her child by calling 911. Of course Finnell's statement disagrees with Baez's opening statement in which he put forth what KC knows, but oh well... "justice" in America!

The point is that she states that even Casey doesn't know what happened after the drowning. She doesn't know how Caylee got in the woods, etc. Whether the reason she doesn't know is she wasn't there for the disposal or she blacked out or had some kind of mental break, we don't know. AF doesn't say.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 01:30 PM
I believe she was asked about this in a deposition, and she denied it and continues to deny the fight. She turned that night into a cuddle session watching the video of the visit with her father earlier that day. So yes, Cindy refused to tell the truth about it, so why should the state bother asking her about in court? She would have only lied about it. With nothing but hearsay to verify this fight, there is no way the state could have brought it into court. Even the neighbors can't say for sure that they heard arguing on the night of the 15th.

So there was no way the State could have went to her grandparents and say, when did you alert Cindy to the fact Casey was steal money from you?

Aedrys
08-08-2011, 01:31 PM
The point is that she states that even Casey doesn't know what happened after the drowning. She doesn't know how Caylee got in the woods, etc. Whether the reason she doesn't know is she wasn't there for the disposal or she blacked out or had some kind of mental break, we don't know. AF doesn't say.

Like Casey has ever told the entire truth to anyone? She lied, and continues to lie. She knows exactly what happened to her own child and it doesn't bother her one bit. She put on a show for her DT, and they all bought her koolaid.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:31 PM
(jumping off your post)
And what was the basis for believing GA lied?
Was it because the woman who goes by two competely different names (not a nickname like her dad called,but an ALIAS),who gave a sworn statement to LE that she did not have an affair with GA ,then changed that story whan she got paid by the National Enquirer, now claims she did have an affair with GA? Is that the witness we are to believe to impeach GA ? :banghead:

All you have to do is read GA's deposition and compare it to his trial testimony to see that you don't need the River Cruz affair to know he lies just like the rest of them.

Aedrys
08-08-2011, 01:33 PM
So there was no way the State could have went to her grandparents and say, when did you alert Cindy to the fact Casey was steal money from you?

The grandparents are old and sickly in nursing homes. The grandparents in no way could verify that that fight happened when they weren't there to see it. That's just a piece of information, it doesn't prove that the fight actually happened. The only people who can verify this fight refuse to talk about it. There was no point in bringing in up in court, and believe me, I wanted in it court as much you do. But there was no way it could be brought into court.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:34 PM
Thanks for the links.

We really need to ask ourselves "why" would they claim that she does not know?

JB very clearly stated the events of the "accident". Surely she isn't saying that she can remember that part of Caylee's demise but then NOT remember anything else....

I understand where you're coming from. But, we just don't know. Maybe (pure speculation) she was traumatized after finding Caylee drowned and just doesn't know what happened next.

gxm
08-08-2011, 01:36 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.

Amazing! I think you may have inadvertently illustrated the gaping (worm)holes in the pro-verdict reasoning: it's pure sophistry. There is, in actuality, no logic or "reasonable doubt" in effect here. Just smoke and mirrors. A shell game. (Which are exactly the analogies I used to describe JB's tactics throughout the trial.)

When one goes to the grocery store, and enters the produce department, it would be considered unreasonable to send the produce for further testing to make sure that one is, indeed, buying an apple. If inclined, one may "test" the produce for ripeness (as in, thump on a cantaloupe) or check for bruising, but to actually insist that the apples be sent off for verification that these apples are indeed apples! One could expect to be thrown out of the store for such a performance, if not arrested, because such a request exceeds the bounds of reason.

Really, the computer brand analogy is a bit much. They don't look like apples of the fruit kind, or taste like apples, or even smell like them. All one has to do is hold up the fruit next to the smartphone (or child's toy) and most folks can tell the difference without the assistance of an expert witness. If pro-verdict reasoning includes confusing a piece of fruit with a smartphone then, good grief, that sure explains a lot!

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:36 PM
Could you please provide a link indicating that all evidence was in the jury room? Thanks.

Sure. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8232571

at around 6:34 you will see that all the exhibits and evidence is not in the courtroom. I have also posted here a page or two back links to news sources stating that 400 exhibits were sent to the jury room.

margE
08-08-2011, 01:38 PM
I understand where you're coming from. But, we just don't know. Maybe (pure speculation) she was traumatized after finding Caylee drowned and just doesn't know what happened next.


Traumatized= partying, hot body contests, smoking pot, sleeping with your boo and lying your butt off.. Yeah thats how a person traumatized usually acts..Almost forgot..got a tattoo
I dont believe Ann F anymore than I believe Ms Anthony....

Baznme
08-08-2011, 01:40 PM
All you have to do is read GA's deposition and compare it to his trial testimony to see that you don't need the River Cruz affair to know he lies just like the rest of them.

If LE thought that any lies GA told had anything to do with Caylee's demise, do you honestly think he would be walking around fancy free? I seriously doubt it. You cannot deflect from FCA's responsibility in this case. She's not the innocent princess her parents regarded her as. GA wasn't on trial. FCA was. Period.

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 01:41 PM
The point is that she states that even Casey doesn't know what happened after the drowning. She doesn't know how Caylee got in the woods, etc. Whether the reason she doesn't know is she wasn't there for the disposal or she blacked out or had some kind of mental break, we don't know. AF doesn't say.

BBM - you left out the option that Casey just lied about not knowing what happened after the drowning.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 01:43 PM
Thank you. I read that. But I'm looking for confirmation that ALL of the evidence was in the jury room as the OP stated - since he/she is such a stickler for every little detail. :)

I believe someone stated on here today that all the exhibits were in the courtroom while the verdit was read. I simply posted proof that was not true and added further information that 400 peices of evidence was sent to the jury room. Someone then posted that any audio video would have to be requested in which I agree, as it is also noted in the links I provided.

natsound
08-08-2011, 01:45 PM
I understand where you're coming from. But, we just don't know. Maybe (pure speculation) she was traumatized after finding Caylee drowned and just doesn't know what happened next.

KC does know what happened. No drowning. Her lawyers aren't going to concede that! They have to say she doesn't know.

IfIMay
08-08-2011, 01:46 PM
Well, I am pretty sure they talked about Caseys prior bad acts of sometimes smoking pot, so I think they could have have asked Cindy about it, how would it make sense she could be asked about her kids maybe having relations but they couldnt ask her about money and a fight? A fight that happened right before the child disappears, but then the State argues she killed to party?

And exactly what would she say? The rules of evidence apply, whether some would like a dot to dot connect sheet or not. Amy testified that FCA told her Cindy was crazy. Apparently FCA's word was gold to the jury, so what would change? You want this and that, but the evidence that can be admitted is what it is. If you study it, then answer is as plain as the moles on FCA's face.

KarmaGet'em
08-08-2011, 01:46 PM
Sure. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8232571

at around 6:34 you will see that all the exhibits and evidence is not in the courtroom. I have also posted here a page or two back links to news sources stating that 400 exhibits were sent to the jury room.

Keep in mind that a large number of the pieces of evidence were displayed on their monitor from a computer database (ie. videos, some of the photos, etc.). It was said in those past links that the jury would have to request to view those because they did not have access to that in the jury room. No such request at the point that the article was written.

Also, review of the witness testimony would require a request to the judge so that the court reporter could transcribe the testimony to them.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 01:50 PM
Sure. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8232571

at around 6:34 you will see that all the exhibits and evidence is not in the courtroom. I have also posted here a page or two back links to news sources stating that 400 exhibits were sent to the jury room.

None of the trial testimony was in the jury room. They would have had to ask the court reporter to read the desired testimony back. What good are the exhibits w/o the actual testimony ?

Chablis
08-08-2011, 01:52 PM
And exactly what would she say? The rules of evidence apply, whether some would like a dot to dot connect sheet or not. Amy testified that FCA told her Cindy was crazy. Apparently FCA's word was gold to the jury, so what would change? You want this and that, but the evidence that can be admitted is what it is. If you study it, then answer is as plain as the moles on FCA's face.

If the State wanted to use the fight as a motive, all they had to do was go talk to the grandparents and a case could have been made around Cindy confronting Casey, if they tried to say she did it to party, they could have went with the fight thing and its a travesty they did not, this happened the day before Caylee was last seen and one chloroform search was done months ago, I cant believe the State went with the chloroform party thing.

coco puff
08-08-2011, 02:07 PM
I understand where you're coming from. But, we just don't know. Maybe (pure speculation) she was traumatized after finding Caylee drowned and just doesn't know what happened next.


well at least she was able to remember she had a date that night. Wouldn't want to keep TonE waiting.

I just feel like crying all over again. :truce:

Coco Puff out.

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 02:07 PM
It's all in your interpretation of the definition, I guess. I have a friend of the family that drove drunk one night with 2 friends in the car. They hit a telephone pole and one of the passengers was killed. The driver, (who was over the allowed level for alcohol in his system) was given 6 years in jail for aggravated manslaughter. It was an accident but due to negligence.

If you have a pool and a 2.5 yr. old. You're on the computer or you've fallen asleep and you didn't check to make sure the doors were locked and the child was inside with you before you went on with whatever you wanted to do, then yes, you are negligent because you didn't take all precautions to ensure the safety of your child.

It would be the same if they were in the backyard already and she got on the phone, not paying attention to what the baby was doing and Caylee climbed that ladder and she drowned. YOU can be held responsible because you did not ensure the safety of your child.

She could have been held legally responsible. Lots of families that have lost children this way were not prosecuted and the drowning deemed "accidental". If this is "culpable negligence" and if Florida courts were to exercise the law as it is written, there would be a lot more people to face the charges. Many don't get to the courts and are written up in police reports as an "accident".

That being said, I don't believe that's what happened here. Too many of FCA's activities in March that indicate to me this was planned, far in advance and so the point of the alleged "accidental" drowning is moot IMHO.

accident vs culpable negligence. The way I interpret it is driving drunk and having an accident that ends with a death is culpable for driving drunk is a crime, driving drunk is gross and flagrant, it's conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects. If Caylee drowned while Casey was say drunk or on drugs, or left her home alone, that would be culpable negligence. I just can't jump that while she was sleeping or on the computer, especially considering another adult was there that admitted to this normal day of him watching, feeding, sharing a video with her, is culpable negligence. MOO.

dvdman
08-08-2011, 02:31 PM
I watched the "48 hours on ID Discovery" special last night about the case and all I can say again is WOW! How in the world did that Jury ever let this murderer off has got to be up there with the other "Unexplained Mysteries Of The World". Anyway I still disagree 100% with the verdict and I think the Jury should have been drug tested. I mean that's the only explanation I could think of for their verdict.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 02:31 PM
If the State wanted to use the fight as a motive, all they had to do was go talk to the grandparents and a case could have been made around Cindy confronting Casey, if they tried to say she did it to party, they could have went with the fight thing and its a travesty they did not, this happened the day before Caylee was last seen and one chloroform search was done months ago, I cant believe the State went with the chloroform party thing.
And what makes you think the grandparents would have testified against FCA, especially since they CA's parents ?

Baznme
08-08-2011, 02:40 PM
accident vs culpable negligence. The way I interpret it is driving drunk and having an accident that ends with a death is culpable for driving drunk is a crime, driving drunk is gross and flagrant, it's conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects. If Caylee drowned while Casey was say drunk or on drugs, or left her home alone, that would be culpable negligence. I just can't jump that while she was sleeping or on the computer, especially considering another adult was there that admitted to this normal day of him watching, feeding, sharing a video with her, is culpable negligence. MOO.

We're talking about two different times of day. FCA admitted she left the house that afternoon with Caylee and according to the phone pings she went back to the house AFTER GA went to work. After nanny's non-existence is discovered, she changed her story. As far as the "accident" vs. culpable negligence. Replace the alcohol with the computer, cell phone and voila you have the addiction.

I'm with logicalgirl. Done with this thread. It's counter-productive and I'm sure there's another case awaiting some sleuthing.

SailorMoon
08-08-2011, 02:46 PM
Welcome to the Pinellas County 12 --- the 8th wonder of the world.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 03:41 PM
Hmm - 24 hours in the heat in Florida - doubt by that time the duct tape would have stuck....

I agree.I not only believe Casey put the duct tape over Caylee's mouth while she was alive,I think she did it with Caylee's eyes looking right at her.

At the hearing when JA described what the State believed happened to Caylee,Casey grabbed her wrists and rubbed them .


I've said it before , but as a foster mother for 17 years I've seen what so-called loving mothers are capable of doing to their babies. Just like an abusive husband might blame the wife he beats for making him do it, mothers (and fathers) justify abusing their children the same way. The sickest are the ones who behave like the model parent in public ,because they know their abuse is unacceptable,so they find ways to torture their child in ways that won't show.
There is something called nanny's elbow.The joint can be displaced causing excruciating pain ,and can be popped back in . It's one of the hideous tricks to hide child abuse because it doesn't show.Left unchecked,the abuse gets worse over time.
There is not a doubt in my mind Casey is like that ,and worse. Guilty Felony One .

MissJames
08-08-2011, 03:49 PM
Could explain why so much duct tape and how it was attached though. Please don't get hung up on a detail such as what I suggested regarding the duct tape. I wanted to bring up the "rubbing alcohol" as a possibility as everyone has it in their home and it's a cheap chemical to access and evaporates completely. Right down her lane, KWIM?

Didn't CA say she googled alcohol?

Aedrys
08-08-2011, 04:04 PM
Saying "well, we will just never know" is not good enough for what happened to Caylee. It wouldn't be good enough if someone murdered my stepchild. I would be horrified if the murderer of my child got off because of such an attitude. If I were juror, that wouldn't be good enough to me. I would use every last bit of my logic and imagination along with looking at every last piece of evidence and testimony to help me make a decision. Every murdered child deserves for twelve people to sit down and fill in the missing pieces, not say "well, we'll just never know" and acquit a murderer. That's not how justice is supposed to work. That's a failure of justice to just be okay with never knowing what really happened and that's that, go ahead and acquit. I can't believe anyone would be okay with that. Surely if it was someone's own child, I would think that giving up at not knowing would NEVER be good enough. Some of those twelve had children, and startlingly, not knowing was good enough. Since did the world become so complacent like this? So unwilling to use imagination and logic to put the puzzle pieces together and see the truth that is staring them in the face? Are we so self centered and insecure with ourselves and the world we live in that it's better we think of Casey as a good mom and we'll just never know what really happened to Caylee? That's not good enough at all to me. This verdict is wrong and a travesty of justice.

Baznme
08-08-2011, 04:12 PM
Didn't CA say she googled alcohol?

Yep,.........here's what was transcribed from that day's testimony.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies

and another transcribed for that day by another Websleuther.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies

Chablis
08-08-2011, 04:33 PM
And what makes you think the grandparents would have testified against FCA, especially since they CA's parents ?

So the very last day the child was seen and the events just dont matter? Her parents testified for the State, people can be subpoenaed.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 04:41 PM
Yep,.........here's what was transcribed from that day's testimony.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6746944&postcount=73)

and another transcribed for that day by another Websleuther.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6746726&postcount=74)

Thanks,Baznme :seeya:

Poor Caylee. She didn't stand a chance : (

RR0004
08-08-2011, 04:43 PM
Ok, but what about the money she stole from her grandfather? Do you really think they could not get that and show that and then ask Cindy if she approached Casey, because they asked Cindy all sorts of stuff, even insinuating incest between her kids. The State could have presented this, the last few hours the child was alive, and things maybe could have been different.

jmo
I think it has to do with introducing prior bad acts and all that stuff...like the check/ID fraud...not admissible.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 04:54 PM
I think it has to do with introducing prior bad acts and all that stuff...like the check/ID fraud...not admissible.

Cindy wasn't going with that story,anyway. She wanted to present June 15th as a warm and fuzzy evening between mother,daughter and grandaughter. As time went on the description got warmer and fuzzier.No way would she tell the truth if it helped the State prove their case. :maddening:

Sustained
08-08-2011, 04:58 PM
So the very last day the child was seen and the events just dont matter? Her parents testified for the State, people can be subpoenaed.
Were CA's parents at the Anthony home on the 15th ? I thought that CA, FCA & Caylee had gone to the nursing home when CA's father resided. So what would be the benefit of them testifying about the 15th ? The fight was supposedly at the Anthony home.

My point was more about the stolen money ... I can guarantee that had the State had gotten an assurance from CA's mom that FCA had stolen money and CA's mom would testify to that fact, the State would have put her on the stand. Sadly, I think CA got to her first ....

Trapshooter
08-08-2011, 05:22 PM
So the very last day the child was seen and the events just dont matter? Her parents testified for the State, people can be subpoenaed.
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Yep, her parents testified and perjured themselves! So what makes you think the grandparents wouldn't lie on the stand too? So what if they were subpoenaed? That doesn't mean they will tell the truth!

pcrum12
08-08-2011, 05:31 PM
KC does know what happened. No drowning. Her lawyers aren't going to concede that! They have to say she doesn't know.

Well, How do you know?

NavySubMom
08-08-2011, 05:38 PM
Traumatized= partying, hot body contests, smoking pot, sleeping with your boo and lying your butt off.. Yeah thats how a person traumatized usually acts..Almost forgot..got a tattoo
I dont believe Ann F anymore than I believe Ms Anthony....

and lying to your mother about where Caylee is for 31 days in many phone calls received from your mother, saying Caylee is at a breakfast @ Universal, the nanny had a car accident, FCA met a new boyfriend named Jeff Hopkins who lives in jacksonville who has a son who Caylee is playing with and FCA is staying with said new boyfriend, etc., on and on for 31 days saying Where Caylee Was, IMO she was not too traumatized for that or had no kind of blackout I ever heard of making up total fantasy. IMO, MOO, etc.

Sustained
08-08-2011, 05:39 PM
Well, How do you know?
He/she, as well as the rest of us verdict opponents are still waiting for the verdict supporters to provide one documented case (out of tens of thousands of drownings) where 911 was not called and the accident was staged to look like a murder.

Chablis
08-08-2011, 05:43 PM
I think it has to do with introducing prior bad acts and all that stuff...like the check/ID fraud...not admissible.

But Casey was not prosecuted for that. There really is no doubt the grandparents could have told the cops when they alerted Cindy about Casey, and if it was the day before, thats more of a motive than partying but it seems people just dont want to acknowledge this could be motive, it just had to be to party. jmo

dizzychick
08-08-2011, 06:03 PM
Im like everybody else I disagree with the verdict but I suppose I could play devil's advocate and make whatever I wanted out of the evidence that was presented. The lawyer I work for and I went round and round for 3 years about this case. I do all of his civil work but primarily he is a criminal defense attorney. With that said, he quickly reminded me that I had been guilty of getting people to sign " affidavits of Non- prosecution all the time and that I had done this countless times. Ok I confess I have and forgot about that or didnt equate it to this case. essentially this is what happened in an indirect way whereas the victims or family members refused to come forward with all of the facts in the case, this made the verdict of NG easier to accomplish. Had the prosecution gotten ALL of the facts and evidence and all of the players in this case tell everything they knew, we might have had a different outcome.

I was remined how often this happens in other cases and the lawyers told me many domestic violence cases are not prosecuted or found NG for this very reason.

This didnt help me to feel any better about the outcome of this case though..It was just more salt in my wounds LOL

natsound
08-08-2011, 06:20 PM
Well, How do you know?

How do I know what? That KC killed Caylee, is that what you're asking me? How much time do you have?

LinTX
08-08-2011, 06:25 PM
:banghead:
I swore to give up posting in this thread, but seeing today's post using the FBI's testimony as a reason for not trusting the chloroform evidence was like red cape/bull for me. Those who have read this before, feel free to skip. Those who use the FBI testimony to ignore Dr. Vass, please read and even verify for yourself by watching the testimony *and* redirects by JA.

Dr. Rickenbach was obviously very uncomfortable testifying about amounts based on his qualitative studies, and I believe JB picked up on that during his deposition so he crafted his questions for trial very carefully in order to take advantage of it. Thus all the qualitative vs quantitative smoke screen during the trial and the phrasing of his questions. OK, so he was uncomfortable estimating quantities, but when pressed by JA to estimate amounts relative to his positive control (of 100ppm) in the sealed sample, he said about 5%or about 5ppm, which was what Dr. Vass found. Once again, Dr. Vass, did not only do air testing of the carpet sample. He testified that he also tested it using the same techniques that the FBI used with the only difference being that he actually used a more sensitive method of extraction (cryotrapping) , but both showed much higher levels than should have been there. Chloroform in decomp is normally seen in parts per trillion, this one was parts per million.

JB used very specific language to make it seem that Dr. R. was saying the levels were low but that was low as compared to his control sample (of 100ppm). Every single time JB asked him about levels, he qualified the question with "as compared to the positive control". The transcript of JA's redirect & clarification (from http://www.wftv.com/video/28158552/index.html):

3:37
JA: I want the jury to understand...if no legitimate information can be obtained about the quantity of chloroform, how is it possible to answer defense council's question that it's similar to what's in cleaning products?

3:55 (JB objects but is overruled)
Dr.R answer: I think I can answer the question not based on quantitative but on qualitative analysis...that if I, ya know, if we can detect chloroform in, cleaning products, uh it's ya know, you can detect it in these items, and it's just the amounts are compared to the positive control.

4:25
JA OK, so when you said that it's similar to the amounts in cleaning products, you simply meant by that, it's detectable?

Dr.R (nods head):
That's, that's correct

JA:
So when you answered counsel's question, that's all you meant, was simply, that it's detectable?

Dr. R: Yes

Please don't wave that red cape anymore. I'm even boring myself at this point, but I keep thinking one of you will read it who use the FBI guy's testimony as a reason to not believe these experts. :banghead:

yolorado
08-08-2011, 06:31 PM
To me the chloroform doesn't even matter. The way the body was disposed, the duct tape, the stench in the car, and the lying to her parents and LE is what convinces me. How Caylee was murdered is irrelevant really.

Plus it was her child whom she NEVER reported missing and took no action to save IF there was some accident. IMO, part of Caylee's law should be that if you don't report your child's death or abduction and the child turns up seriously wounded or dead, the assumption becomes fowl play and the burden of proof shift to the defense! Her kid, her responsibility. Child was in her care. When confronted about child's whereabouts, lied for 3 years. Child turns up dead in swamp with duct tape wrapped around her head. That's all anyone should need. If that ain't consciousness of guilt in something that should result in a very long prison sentence, I don't know what would be.

RR0004
08-08-2011, 06:39 PM
But Casey was not prosecuted for that. There really is no doubt the grandparents could have told the cops when they alerted Cindy about Casey, and if it was the day before, thats more of a motive than partying but it seems people just dont want to acknowledge this could be motive, it just had to be to party. jmo
Okay...how about too prejudicial? And when the only ones who know the truth won't tell the truth, how do you defend being able to have it admitted in a court of law (I'm talking about the stolen money)? From what I remember, there was a cut off date as far as Casey's behavior was concerned (6/16 IIRC). Everything else had to pertain to consciousness of guilt (still talking about behavior) or the act itself.

PS- to all the attorneys out there, sorry if I messed up all the legal stuff. :)

yolorado
08-08-2011, 06:39 PM
I can believe this for sure, so why didn't the State pursue this route and not a few pictures of one night saying the child died so she could party? Being mad at your overbearing mother is more of a believable motive to me then partying. jmo
State isn't required to present motive. Sometimes they can present a definite one, sometimes speculate as they did here, and it wasn't just to party, it was to protect her long line of lies from being detected since Caylee was starting to talk and would soon be able to put the kybosh on Mommy's lies. The state brought that up, I know. They were trying to bring up evidence that KC was upset when Cindy was unable to babysit and KC couldn't go out or spend time with her guys, but JP disallowed it. There was probably a big blow up fight the night before the murder, but that was disallowed in or the state may not have been able to get adequate testimony to support it. I think Lee was the one who originally talked about the fight but he wasn't really co-operating with the prosecution by trial.

State is not required by law (at stated in the instructions JP gave the jury) to prove motive or cause of death. Cuz how would they really know in this case. KC ain't tellin'. Maybe she just flew into a rage and snapped. Whoops dead baby, but that's still felony murder.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 06:40 PM
:banghead:
I swore to give up posting in this thread, but seeing today's post using the FBI's testimony as a reason for not trusting the chloroform evidence was like red cape/bull for me. Those who have read this before, feel free to skip. Those who use the FBI testimony to ignore Dr. Vass, please read and even verify for yourself by watching the testimony *and* redirects by JA.

Dr. Rickenbach was obviously very uncomfortable testifying about amounts based on his qualitative studies, and I believe JB picked up on that during his deposition so he crafted his questions for trial very carefully in order to take advantage of it. Thus all the qualitative vs quantitative smoke screen during the trial and the phrasing of his questions. OK, so he was uncomfortable estimating quantities, but when pressed by JA to estimate amounts relative to his positive control (of 100ppm) in the sealed sample, he said about 5%or about 5ppm, which was what Dr. Vass found. Once again, Dr. Vass, did not only do air testing of the carpet sample. He testified that he also tested it using the same techniques that the FBI used with the only difference being that he actually used a more sensitive method of extraction (cryotrapping) , but both showed much higher levels than should have been there. Chloroform in decomp is normally seen in parts per trillion, this one was parts per million.

JB used very specific language to make it seem that Dr. R. was saying the levels were low but that was low as compared to his control sample (of 100ppm). Every single time JB asked him about levels, he qualified the question with "as compared to the positive control". The transcript of JA's redirect & clarification (from http://www.wftv.com/video/28158552/index.html):



Please don't wave that red cape anymore. I'm even boring myself at this point, but I keep thinking one of you will read it who use the FBI guy's testimony as a reason to not believe these experts. :banghead:

Thank you ! Another MYTH laid to rest ,again.

RR0004
08-08-2011, 06:47 PM
But Casey was not prosecuted for that. There really is no doubt the grandparents could have told the cops when they alerted Cindy about Casey, and if it was the day before, thats more of a motive than partying but it seems people just dont want to acknowledge this could be motive, it just had to be to party. jmo
I think the whole time thing is off. IIRC Cindy was aware of the theft earlier. I'm not 100% sure SP brought it up the day of the visit, but she may have.

MissJames
08-08-2011, 06:48 PM
Okay...how about too prejudicial? And when the only ones who know the truth won't tell the truth, how do you defend being able to have it admitted in a court of law (I'm talking about the stolen money)? From what I remember, there was a cut off date as far as Casey's behavior was concerned (6/16 IIRC). Everything else had to pertain to consciousness of guilt (still talking about behavior) or the act itself.

PS- to all the attorneys out there, sorry if I messed up all the legal stuff. :)

Grandmother Shirley Plesea was on the State's witness list and I'm not sure why she wasn't called. The grandfather had a stroke and we have heard nothing from him. Shirley didn't go to the police because Cindy asked her not to.She also paid her mother back what Casey stole,IIRC.

Since the theft from her grandmother ,as well as the theft from Amy H . wasn't directly related to the murder,it probably would not be allowed in unless the defense opened the door.

I bet it would have come up at sentencing ,though.


ETA CAsey told her grandmother the first check she wrote was for a birthday cake for Caylee and the second (routed) was to pay for her Blackberry she needed for work.Her company was supposed to pay for it but there was a glitch and she promised it would be paid back.Of course,there was no blackberry phone and no job. Casey's lies and using people started long before she killed Caylee.JMO

RR0004
08-08-2011, 06:49 PM
:banghead:
I swore to give up posting in this thread, but seeing today's post using the FBI's testimony as a reason for not trusting the chloroform evidence was like red cape/bull for me. Those who have read this before, feel free to skip. Those who use the FBI testimony to ignore Dr. Vass, please read and even verify for yourself by watching the testimony *and* redirects by JA.

Dr. Rickenbach was obviously very uncomfortable testifying about amounts based on his qualitative studies, and I believe JB picked up on that during his deposition so he crafted his questions for trial very carefully in order to take advantage of it. Thus all the qualitative vs quantitative smoke screen during the trial and the phrasing of his questions. OK, so he was uncomfortable estimating quantities, but when pressed by JA to estimate amounts relative to his positive control (of 100ppm) in the sealed sample, he said about 5%or about 5ppm, which was what Dr. Vass found. Once again, Dr. Vass, did not only do air testing of the carpet sample. He testified that he also tested it using the same techniques that the FBI used with the only difference being that he actually used a more sensitive method of extraction (cryotrapping) , but both showed much higher levels than should have been there. Chloroform in decomp is normally seen in parts per trillion, this one was parts per million.

JB used very specific language to make it seem that Dr. R. was saying the levels were low but that was low as compared to his control sample (of 100ppm). Every single time JB asked him about levels, he qualified the question with "as compared to the positive control". The transcript of JA's redirect & clarification (from http://www.wftv.com/video/28158552/index.html):



Please don't wave that red cape anymore. I'm even boring myself at this point, but I keep thinking one of you will read it who use the FBI guy's testimony as a reason to not believe these experts. :banghead:
It won't matter...I'm not sure if everyone is reading all the posts...so save this one so you don't have to type it over.:)

Chablis
08-08-2011, 07:30 PM
Okay...how about too prejudicial? And when the only ones who know the truth won't tell the truth, how do you defend being able to have it admitted in a court of law (I'm talking about the stolen money)? From what I remember, there was a cut off date as far as Casey's behavior was concerned (6/16 IIRC). Everything else had to pertain to consciousness of guilt (still talking about behavior) or the act itself.

PS- to all the attorneys out there, sorry if I messed up all the legal stuff. :)

All I am saying if if Casey was confronted by Cindy the night before Caylee dies about her ripping off her grandpa, to me that shows more motive than anything, but if some want to act like the LE could not confront the grandparents and try to establish a motive around that, fine. Its fact their party chloroform theory strategy failed. jmo

thedeviledadvocate
08-08-2011, 08:02 PM
:banghead:
I swore to give up posting in this thread, but seeing today's post using the FBI's testimony as a reason for not trusting the chloroform evidence was like red cape/bull for me. Those who have read this before, feel free to skip. Those who use the FBI testimony to ignore Dr. Vass, please read and even verify for yourself by watching the testimony *and* redirects by JA.

Dr. Rickenbach was obviously very uncomfortable testifying about amounts based on his qualitative studies, and I believe JB picked up on that during his deposition so he crafted his questions for trial very carefully in order to take advantage of it. Thus all the qualitative vs quantitative smoke screen during the trial and the phrasing of his questions. OK, so he was uncomfortable estimating quantities, but when pressed by JA to estimate amounts relative to his positive control (of 100ppm) in the sealed sample, he said about 5%or about 5ppm, which was what Dr. Vass found. Once again, Dr. Vass, did not only do air testing of the carpet sample. He testified that he also tested it using the same techniques that the FBI used with the only difference being that he actually used a more sensitive method of extraction (cryotrapping) , but both showed much higher levels than should have been there. Chloroform in decomp is normally seen in parts per trillion, this one was parts per million.

JB used very specific language to make it seem that Dr. R. was saying the levels were low but that was low as compared to his control sample (of 100ppm). Every single time JB asked him about levels, he qualified the question with "as compared to the positive control". The transcript of JA's redirect & clarification (from http://www.wftv.com/video/28158552/index.html):



Please don't wave that red cape anymore. I'm even boring myself at this point, but I keep thinking one of you will read it who use the FBI guy's testimony as a reason to not believe these experts. :banghead:

Color me confused.

Deals with descriptions.
Data can be observed but not measured.
Colors, textures, smells, tastes, appearance, beauty, etc.
Qualitative → Quality

Deals with numbers.
Data which can be measured.
Length, height, area, volume, weight, speed, time, temperature, humidity, sound levels, cost, members, ages, etc.
Quantitative → Quantity

How can any numerical value or LEVEL, be it parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion etc. be found when using a QUALITATIVE test?

Any expert using a qualitative test would be estimating as JA persuaded the Dr. to do as far as the LEVEL or AMOUNT of chloroform based on a qualitative test.

When Dr. Vass testified that there were shockingly high levels of chloroform found in his qualitative test, that statement in and of itself cannot be true without doing a quantitative to determine the amount or level, and as far as I know, Dr. Vass did not do a quantitative test.

Please anyone explain to me how a test that deals with descriptions, where data CANNOT be measured, how you determine that there is a high level of anything in that test?

thedeviledadvocate
08-08-2011, 08:07 PM
So, can we agree that CM "perceived" guilt?

Prior to CM joining the DT, he had the same information we had via sunshine law at that point in time. As many TH lawyers had stated at that point in time, it did look like KC would be given the DP or LWOP or there would be a circus trial.

After joining the DT, CM was then priveleged to information he did not previously have, and upon reviewing this new information, he changed his previous opinion. That doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.

I can agree however, that prior to joining the team, CM perceived guilt.

My entire post, is my opinion only.

annalia
08-08-2011, 08:47 PM
Prior to CM joining the DT, he had the same information we had via sunshine law at that point in time. As many TH lawyers had stated at that point in time, it did look like KC would be given the DP or LWOP or there would be a circus trial.

After joining the DT, CM was then priveleged to information he did not previously have, and upon reviewing this new information, he changed his previous opinion. That doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.

I can agree however, that prior to joining the team, CM perceived guilt.

My entire post, is my opinion only.

What information would the be? Words from the liar Casey? That's all he would have as there was no evidence of sexual abuse or drowning except from the mouth of Casey.

How does one review non existent information? He heard Casey and thought ok that sounds good, we'll go with that? Because that's all it amounted to, the words of a pathologial liar.

thedeviledadvocate
08-08-2011, 08:56 PM
I gotta say I am impressed with the jurors ability to speed read then, and review evidence - more than 350 pieces in five hours - that would be 70 pieces an hour - they need to package that technique and sell it.

hypothetical jury deliberations:

Foreman was chosen, Two people were willing, they all agreed on juror 11.

The initial vote on the first charge was 10-2. The deliberation needed at this point was to discuss why the 2 felt she was guilty on charge 1. We can only guess as to what they actually talked about but it could have been something like this.

I think the chloroform searches prove premeditated murder, because who looks up how to make chloroform 84 times.

I agree, thats why I think she is guilty of the first charge also.

Well, the search only lasted 3 minutes, and that doesn't make sense, besides, the way I understood it, there was only 1 chloroform search and the 84 times was for myspace. Anyway, JA said "he could only hope KC used the chloroform first so Caylee didn't suffer." To me, that means the state is only hoping and or guessing or speculating that chloroform was ever even used, and they never showed any proof of it being made.

Within an hour or so of talking, the new vote was 12 - 0 not guilty on count 1, and they had also decided 12 - 0 guilty on the 4 counts of lying.

That means they spent roughly 8 hours deliberating over counts 2 and 3. The initial vote here was 6 - 6. We don't know how strongly these voters felt either way. We don't know if there was any argument at all about evidence. They could have all believed or disbelieved the same evidence, and in that case would not have needed to review. Those who talked seemed to indicate they were having trouble as to who was the caregiver. I am certain, there was concern that KC had some responsiblity, and this contributed to the 6 6 split initially. Since the state never proved when or how Caylee died, they would have had a hard time deciding when Caylee died themselves, since there was never any proof as to when she died. So when trying to decide who the caregiver was, well, what is the time frame, what are the parameters? Some of the jurors felt GA was not credible. Does anyone on this site know what time Caylee died? Can anyone on this site show a proven time frame. Did Caylee really die on the 16th? Is there any proof of that? How does the jury know if she died on the 16th, or if she died on the 15th when CA was home as well? All the A's were not credible. All of the jurors may have decided that the duct tape may have been on the face, but it may not have been, and if that is how they felt, then they have to go with it wasn't according to the law. Her behavior seemed to be part of the discussion, but as one juror stated, bad behavior does not prove she murdered her child. The state did not show proof of murder according to the jurors who spoke. They may have all felt terrible and that KC was partially responsible, but after 8 hours of deliberating, they ultimately, unanimously rendered a verdict of not guilty on the first 3 counts. They did their job, to the best of their abilities. Maybe they did get it wrong, but I personally think they got it right. I think they did deliberate properly, and go over whatever was necessary to end up agreeing unanimously.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

thedeviledadvocate
08-08-2011, 09:09 PM
What information would the be? Words from the liar Casey? That's all he would have as there was no evidence of sexual abuse or drowning except from the mouth of Casey.

How does one review non existent information? He heard Casey and thought ok that sounds good, we'll go with that? Because that's all it amounted to, the words of a pathologial liar.

There are many things that the prosecution successfully kept the DT from entering into evidence. You and I cannot possibly know what information CM learned after joining the DT. According to his actions, whatever that information was, indicated he had had a change of heart. JMO

thedeviledadvocate
08-08-2011, 09:14 PM
Amazing! I think you may have inadvertently illustrated the gaping (worm)holes in the pro-verdict reasoning: it's pure sophistry. There is, in actuality, no logic or "reasonable doubt" in effect here. Just smoke and mirrors. A shell game. (Which are exactly the analogies I used to describe JB's tactics throughout the trial.)

When one goes to the grocery store, and enters the produce department, it would be considered unreasonable to send the produce for further testing to make sure that one is, indeed, buying an apple. If inclined, one may "test" the produce for ripeness (as in, thump on a cantaloupe) or check for bruising, but to actually insist that the apples be sent off for verification that these apples are indeed apples! One could expect to be thrown out of the store for such a performance, if not arrested, because such a request exceeds the bounds of reason.

Really, the computer brand analogy is a bit much. They don't look like apples of the fruit kind, or taste like apples, or even smell like them. All one has to do is hold up the fruit next to the smartphone (or child's toy) and most folks can tell the difference without the assistance of an expert witness. If pro-verdict reasoning includes confusing a piece of fruit with a smartphone then, good grief, that sure explains a lot!

A shell game was exactly what I thought JA was doing with the fatty substance like adipocere. JMO

Caligram
08-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Once a member of the DT, defensive loyalty became a requirement. The more lawyers on their team, the more they can look for ways to rewrite the entire truthy-tale about what happened to Caylee Marie. But before they could get the jury interested, the DT had to re-direct the focus on FCA, to come up with an entire new fairy tale that would declare that FCA was "the victim", and someone else had to be the big bad wolf, the ogre, so…who else but GA. So now the DT had a new tale with a new "victim" and an "ogre". Oh, wait....what about Caylee Marie. Oh, see ~ it is all quite clear now, the DT created a new part for Caylee Marie… the sacrificial lamb...she climbed into the pool and drowned. That takes care of the "snot head", now the DT team shifts to work on muddying up all the prosecution expert witness testimonies with shifty defense experts. Priority one was the big stink over the rotten smell of decomposition that rotting snot head left in the FCA's trunk. (Note: Snot-head was a term used by FCA in reference to the daughter she loved with all her heart.) The entire DT was rewritten with an entirely different tale, and presented in the obscene, con-coc-ted smutty-tale which JB smirked-out in his OS. Oblivious to nothing but his pride in his clever-ness. JB, the "P" man strutted like a peacock before the jury. The jury had an obvious preference for fairy tales. Much easier to stay oblivious than to confront the grim realities of what happened to a helpless little girl named Caylee Marie.
Doesn’t take much to stretch the truth, just a lack of ethics, and a desire to win at any cost, any way.
IMO

annalia
08-08-2011, 10:07 PM
There are many things that the prosecution successfully kept the DT from entering into evidence. You and I cannot possibly know what information CM learned after joining the DT. According to his actions, whatever that information was, indicated he had had a change of heart. JMO

But you seem to claim to know.

What evidence pertaining to sexual abuse and accidental death was the prosecution successful in keeping out?

We can all sit here all day and just make things up, but in the end none of it, be it sexual abuse or accidental drowning was anything more than imaginations and fantasy. Which is apparently all the defense appeared to have and used. It worked though in getting casey off.

JMHO

Baznme
08-08-2011, 10:09 PM
hypothetical jury deliberations:

Foreman was chosen, Two people were willing, they all agreed on juror 11.

The initial vote on the first charge was 10-2. The deliberation needed at this point was to discuss why the 2 felt she was guilty on charge 1. We can only guess as to what they actually talked about but it could have been something like this.

I think the chloroform searches prove premeditated murder, because who looks up how to make chloroform 84 times.

I agree, thats why I think she is guilty of the first charge also.

Well, the search only lasted 3 minutes, and that doesn't make sense, besides, the way I understood it, there was only 1 chloroform search and the 84 times was for myspace. Anyway, JA said "he could only hope KC used the chloroform first so Caylee didn't suffer." To me, that means the state is only hoping and or guessing or speculating that chloroform was ever even used, and they never showed any proof of it being made.

Within an hour or so of talking, the new vote was 12 - 0 not guilty on count 1, and they had also decided 12 - 0 guilty on the 4 counts of lying.

That means they spent roughly 8 hours deliberating over counts 2 and 3. The initial vote here was 6 - 6. We don't know how strongly these voters felt either way. We don't know if there was any argument at all about evidence. They could have all believed or disbelieved the same evidence, and in that case would not have needed to review. Those who talked seemed to indicate they were having trouble as to who was the caregiver. I am certain, there was concern that KC had some responsiblity, and this contributed to the 6 6 split initially. Since the state never proved when or how Caylee died, they would have had a hard time deciding when Caylee died themselves, since there was never any proof as to when she died. So when trying to decide who the caregiver was, well, what is the time frame, what are the parameters? Some of the jurors felt GA was not credible. Does anyone on this site know what time Caylee died? Can anyone on this site show a proven time frame. Did Caylee really die on the 16th? Is there any proof of that? How does the jury know if she died on the 16th, or if she died on the 15th when CA was home as well? All the A's were not credible. All of the jurors may have decided that the duct tape may have been on the face, but it may not have been, and if that is how they felt, then they have to go with it wasn't according to the law. Her behavior seemed to be part of the discussion, but as one juror stated, bad behavior does not prove she murdered her child. The state did not show proof of murder according to the jurors who spoke. They may have all felt terrible and that KC was partially responsible, but after 8 hours of deliberating, they ultimately, unanimously rendered a verdict of not guilty on the first 3 counts. They did their job, to the best of their abilities. Maybe they did get it wrong, but I personally think they got it right. I think they did deliberate properly, and go over whatever was necessary to end up agreeing unanimously.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I think most of us know what your position is on the possible hows and whys on the deliberations and the concluded verdict, but, it isn't an easy thing to accept. You do make some valid points but, it just doesn't serve the justice so many were seeking for this little girl.

While the entire case reaks of lies, the jury seemed to go through the evidence like a box of leftover yard sale items tossing what they "thought" was something they could not find proof in and keeping the "safe" violations to use in making their decision, i.e., lying to police. Maybe having been exposed to every facet of this case as many on this forum and many similiar forums have for the past three years, makes it even more unbelievable that they would come up with this verdict. For instance, last night on 48 hours, there were two men interviewed that were friends of KC. Both of those friends have posted here at one time or another and we remember those conversations. At the time, they claimed they really didn't know her very well but, yet their faces are right there on TV now that it's over.

I remember talk from acquaintenances of KC's about the days of going to parties, putting Caylee to sleep in another room or in the middle of the floor. Seemed just any ole where was good enough as long as she was asleep. People would remark about "how can she sleep through all this" because of the noise...etc. Those things stick in my head. Did she slip her a little rum to put her out? Who knows but, we kind of got a glimpse of what those days were like for Caylee.

That being said, although the pro-verdict supporters expect those that are not.....to just accept it and go on home, that's not something so easily done. I will never forget this case and I wait for the day she trips up and the real truth comes out although, I may never live long enough to see it.

LambChop
08-08-2011, 10:31 PM
Two things the jury did not see. #1. that the State's evidence remained consistent throughout the whole investigation. They presented what they had and asked the jury to use their common sense. #2. the defense's strategy changed like the wind. KC's stories changed, their theories changed and in the end they went with the biggest fairy tale of all and a jury bought it.

If you were to interview these same people now, you would hear a much different story than we would imagine I'm sure. jmo

TexasLori
08-08-2011, 10:32 PM
...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!

Trust me, I fully believe the jury got it wrong and I'm mad as heck about it. But I try to keep the emotion out of the argument so no one on the pro-verdict side uses that to tear apart my debate. That's why I won't ever say "would you let her babysit" and " did they think about Caylee." It tears my heart that she didn't get justice. I have cried many tears for Caylee before the verdict and after. But I have to remember to keep the emotion out of my arguments.

LambChop
08-08-2011, 10:35 PM
Remember this leopards do not change their spots. She is a creature of habit so I doubt it is possible for her to change now. jmo

Caligram
08-08-2011, 10:43 PM
Yes, I too remember the friends slipping up when describing the times FCA brought Caylee Marie along to a party. They described it as Caylee Marie being so attached to FCA that she would become fearful and cry out when her mother disappeared. FCA would disappear behind a closed door for a quickie with a willing male. I suppose that if the jury had heard about these "good mom" gone bad scenes they would have dismissed them as circumstantial. Yes, with FCA it was all about circumstances, ones that pleased her, of course.
Poor frightened little Caylee Marie, waking up to noisy drinking party-loving strangers, and her mother nowhere to be seen.

cluciano63
08-08-2011, 10:48 PM
He/she, as well as the rest of us verdict opponents are still waiting for the verdict supporters to provide one documented case (out of tens of thousands of drownings) where 911 was not called and the accident was staged to look like a murder.


We might never know, lots of children have vanished and bodies never found...

PeteyGirl
08-08-2011, 10:57 PM
In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.


We see the same thing very differently :)

cuppy199
08-08-2011, 11:29 PM
There are many things that the prosecution successfully kept the DT from entering into evidence. You and I cannot possibly know what information CM learned after joining the DT. According to his actions, whatever that information was, indicated he had had a change of heart. JMO
The action I have see from CM is more time on TV. Just because he climbed on to the gravy train doesnt mean he had a change of heart. I guess the parts of DT that left for reason unknown might of had a change of heart as well.