The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[beccalecca1]

Of course she wouldn't leave her DL in the work bag that she left on the front seat of the abandoned car, she needed it in her everyday purse that she took to Target so she could go on shopping sprees and pay with stolen checks.

IMO she left that bag sitting there in plain view of the abandoned Pontiac for days HOPING the workbag/purse would tempt someone to break into it. She didn't give a flip if they took Amy's resume because that didn't benefit CASEY. What she wasn't counting on is Cindy finding that resume and using it to locate her eventually. Oops.

Why would she lock the doors then? Or why not leave the keys on the seat? Wouldn't that be even more enticing to a thief?

 

[RueMoira]

or was it garbage :waitasec: :crazy: :banghead:

Oh yes you are right, how silly of me. That darn garbage. Shame KC was forced to drive around with garbage in her trunk AND had to leave it in her trunk! Which was a real shame since it otherwise was so clean. And her stupid dad hit that squirrel, he is a real..."insert bad word"! And to top it all off the poor girl was forced to park next to a stinky old dumpster. And not only leave her car, but everything in it. Including an expensive car seat and her baby's favorite dolly. But she didn't need those things anymore. But if it didn't have the car seat in it when it was found by either the cops or her parents...hmmm that whole kidnapping thing would become shaky. Where's the car seat? Would a mother if a missing child get rid of her child's car seat? People have been in the car, since the supposed abduction date, and they have seen the car seat. Hmmm what to do what to do? Can't take them with you, they smelled to much like GARBAGE or other things and can't get rid of them, since they have to be found in the car. Spur of the moment thinking (a trademark of KC's..see Amy H. and Cops at Universal) abandon the car and worry about it later and then lie, lie and lie. And..IT WORKED! Way to Go KC!

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Yes, me too - it's gotten way past the point of reason in this thread. "Just because" as a reason never did cut it with me.

Obviously, I disagree with your post entirely. No one here has argued "just because."

 

[logicalgirl]

Obviously, I disagree with your post entirely. No one here has argued "just because."

Really? Well I disagree obviously - if a person looks at irrefutable evidence and says no, that's not what the evidence is, then that's "just because" even though the poster is not an expert, and didn't "see" this evidence in court, evidence that passed Frye hearings, and was testified to, and experts agree on, but the poster doesn't think it's true or "right" is "just because" to me.

And if a poster insists that a case must be "proven" and can't grasp the principles of circumstantial evidence, then that is also "just because" to me also.

My world is not flat. I can't personally prove that, I haven't seen evidence of that even when flying from one side of the country to another, but experts agree it isn't so that's good enough for me.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't think ANYONE should be allowed Jury Consultants.. !!!! and surely unfair to those who cannot afford them...!!!
A jury of her peers my butt... None of them cared about any news going on around them...Political or otherwise... Flat out unconcerened about their surroundings... and probably didn't want to be bothered with this case either...!!!

It's an odd thing that a jury member is preferable if they are uninformed, unemployed, uninvolved in the community, etc. And what's the point of having experts and LE professionals if they are simply going to be disregarded?

 

[erinleigh]

WHen you didn't bond as the child's MOTHER from the beginning, ... when you had to take a backseat to the controlling GRANDMOTHER who decided everything, bought everything, made decisions regarding the baby... Casey was more like a BIG SISTER than a MOTHER, and a resentful one at that.

She hated sharing the spotlight one iota with Caylee. That's why she broke up with Jesse. She loved being the STAR when she was pregnant but then Caylee became the star and worst of all, then Caylee was prevented Casey from doing the things she WANTED to do (what she "SHOULD have been able to do" in Casey's mind) as a young twenty-something... go out... drink... party... all that jazz.

Casey wanted her freedom more than she wanted Caylee. And once Cindy threatened her with "I'll take the baby away"...Casey called her bluff, and killed Caylee. Grandma Shirley said it best "I think Casey hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee".

:sick:

Did anyone notice when Cinday was viewing the shorts in the video/photo of Caylee in the striped shorts she stated that she did not like those shorts and did not dress caylee in them. seems she even was controlling over what clothes she preferred CAylee dressed in. so was the redressing of those shorts (along with the big trouble t-shirt) a giant F-U to Cindy?

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Really? Well I disagree obviously - if a person looks at irrefutable evidence and says no, that's not what the evidence is, then that's "just because" even though the poster is not an expert, and didn't "see" this evidence in court, evidence that passed Frye hearings, and was testified to, and experts agree on, but the poster doesn't think it's true or "right" is "just because" to me.

It seems a rather subjective conclusion to me as to whether there was irrefutable evidence. Much of it was refutable in my opinion.

Many people who agree with the verdict, and who have posted on this thread, have looked at the evidence and were not convinced by it.

And if a poster insists that a case must be "proven" and can't grasp the principles of circumstantial evidence, then that is also "just because" to me also.

I believe that many of the pro-verdict posters clearly understand circumstantial evidence--much of which was expertly challenged by the defense. The jury, and many of us who agree with the verdict, were (and are) free to interpret, regard or disregard any of the evidence presented.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Yes, and he did do that. The jury was instructed that opening statements are not evidence and must not be considered in deliberations.

Its hard to unring a bell. Some jurors will unring it others can't. Which is why (generic) prosecution and lawyers put stuff in knowing it rings a bell.

There is nothing to say the jurors didn't dislike George because he was perceived as a cheating husband. If any of the jurors have been cheated on, that might not bode well for George's credibility period.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Did anyone notice when Cinday was viewing the shorts in the video/photo of Caylee in the striped shorts she stated that she did not like those shorts and did not dress caylee in them. seems she even was controlling over what clothes she preferred CAylee dressed in. so was the redressing of those shorts (along with the big trouble t-shirt) a giant F-U to Cindy?

Cindy (and George) appeared to have bought most everything for Caylee. Hearing Cindy speak about Caylees routine, day to day activities right down to different items of her clothing, she came off as if she was her mother. It stands to reason Cindy bought Caylee everything she liked to see her in. Not a bad thing or a judgement. Its great to have someone with that level of care. Cindy stated in an interview that Cayle didn't belong to Casey, Caylee belonged to all of them.

 

[Trapshooter]

I heard something interesting a few days after trial on Dr. Drew. He said if you google chlorophyll, on the very first page of the search you will see "how to make chloroform".

Now, I just tried it myself and didn't see the same results, but at the bottom of the page with related searches I do see chloroform. But, that doesn't mean that wasn't how it was back in 2008.

You seem to keep repeating the wrong Google search! The search was "H.O.W. T.O. M.A.K.E. C.H.L.O.R.O.F.O.R.M" Once this topic came up at trial, I Googled chlorophyll spelled different ways and not ONCE did chloroform come up in any search.

I was thinking about the car last night. The "car" being left has always stood out to me.

You have to know when you abandon your car, it's gonna get towed. Tow yards are expensive!! Could explain part of the reason she just left it. Like a final f you to her parents.

If the car was in CA and GA's name...they were responsible for the tow bill. If they didn't pay it, the tow yard would own the car at that point. When CA forked out the 400....I bet she was mad as heck. I know I would be. That's a good chunk of money. Could explain later why she tried to make charges for GTA.....but within an hour or so realized something ALOT worse was happening.

I always thought the car story was the most damaging. Especially damaging to Casey's character. It makes Casey's character seem cruel. I guess what I mean.......what kid breaks down and doesn't call their parents to come get the car? Why let the possibility happen that your parents are going to have a huge tow bill? You would only do that for two combined reasons.....a final f you and wiping your hands "it's over" with them.

I have never believed GA and CA just ignored the tow notice. Who in the heck would just let the money amount accumulate like that?

I agree, GA & CA never IGNORED the tow notice. If you will recall, both of them stated that the tow notice was on the FRONT DOOR of their house. Both GA & CA said they used the garage door as their main entrance into the house.

CA could've just took in upon herself to lie about them because she thought they were incriminating.

Well, actually, in a murder case I have to say they are incriminating. When I first heard the searches though, I honestly believed RM was over at the house looking that stuff up. They just sounded to me like something a guy would search (minus the medical terminology searches). I believed that he probably added that pic to his myspace from the A's house after searching it. But, I was wrong I guess.

You SERIOUSLY think that it was Ricardo Morales that did these searches? :banghead: Why in hell would RM search "neck-breaking", "household weapons"? Anyone that thinks RM did those searches is seriously stretching the imagination!

snipped for emphasis:


The major circumstantial evidence in this case was not only connected with Casey Anthony, IMO.

The duct tape: Everyone in the A household had access to.

The garbage bags: Everyone in the A household had access to.

The laundry bag: Everyone in the A household had access to, and more so the person who stored it in the garage would have knowledge to where it was.

Caylee's clothing: The shirt is one that CA testified to never seeing, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in the house. The shorts were ones Caylee no longer worn, but a lot of Caylee's older clothing was stored in bins in the A's house, so it's very possible everyone in the A household had access to it.

The car: Casey and GA had access to it (GA testified to having his own set of keys, and depending on where he kept them CA may have also had access to the car).How could GA have access to the car when Casey hadn't been seen by him in 31 days? Casey was telling her mother she was in Tampa, Jacksonville, etc. And exactly WHEN was GA supposed to have ran over this squirrel? If GA didn't have access to the car for 31 days, how could HE have possibly ran over a squirrel, as Casey told her friends?

The chloroform: There was never a determination where this even came from. So, I don't know who had access to it and who did not.

I think this is all of the circumstantial evidence that has "connection" value. I may have missed something, but I think this covers it.

The car WAS out of gas. The car would not start at the tow yard. GA even took gas with him to the tow yard. However, he never had anyone that we know of tell him before hand that it was out of gas. Just thinking, maybe Casey told him. hmmmm

WHEN & HOW did Casey tell him??? Please refer to my post above, GA did NOT have access to that car for 31 days! IIRC, it was Cindy that was speaking to Casey on the phone during that time, not George!!!

She probably didn't have any money and would have been embarrassed in front of Tony to admit that. As to calling the Anthonys she would have been admitting her lie that she was out of town. She wasn't going to do that.

Didn't Casey tell Tony that the car was broke down and her Dad would take care of it??? Am I remembering that correcty? And in your post above, you said GA had access to the car and in this post you are saying she couldn't call her parents for help because she would have to admit to lying about being out of town??? So which is it?

Huh ? Which trial were you watching ? Did you see FBI Agent Lowe's testimony ?

Thank you Sustained!!! The prosecution ABSOLUTELY presented the death-banded hair as evidence!!!

It seems a rather subjective conclusion to me at to whether there was irrefutable evidence. Much of it was refutable in my opinion.

Many people who agree with the verdict, and who have posted on this thread, have looked at the evidence and were not convinced by it.



I believe that many of the pro-verdict posters clearly understand circumstantial evidence--much of which was expertly challenged by the defense. The jury, and many of us who agree with the verdict, were (and are) free to interpret, regard or disregard any of the evidence presented.

IMO, the pro-verdict posters clearly DO NOT understand circumstantial evidence!!! You seem to forget that every time JB challenged the "circumstantial evidence", Jeff Ashton cross-examined the witness and made it clear that the evidence was just that.....evidence! IMO, it seems that the pro-verdict posters want concrete proof, not circumstantial evidence that clearly would've lead to a guilty verdict had there been a jury that didn't share one brain! :banghead:

 

[EPfan]

Really? Well I disagree obviously - if a person looks at irrefutable evidence and says no, that's not what the evidence is, then that's "just because" even though the poster is not an expert, and didn't "see" this evidence in court, evidence that passed Frye hearings, and was testified to, and experts agree on, but the poster doesn't think it's true or "right" is "just because" to me.

And if a poster insists that a case must be "proven" and can't grasp the principles of circumstantial evidence, then that is also "just because" to me also.

My world is not flat. I can't personally prove that, I haven't seen evidence of that even when flying from one side of the country to another, but experts agree it isn't so that's good enough for me.

I don't think anybody here says there wasn't circumstantial evidence. The problem is you can't connect it to KC alone. I just don't understand why people can't even consider thinking about that and focus on the evidence that was admitted into the court room.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

IMO, the pro-verdict posters clearly DO NOT understand circumstantial evidence!!! You seem to forget that every time JB challenged the "circumstantial evidence", Jeff Ashton cross-examined the witness and made it clear that the evidence was just that.....evidence! IMO, it seems that the pro-verdict posters want concrete proof, not circumstantial evidence that clearly would've lead to a guilty verdict had there been a jury that didn't share one brain! :banghead:

I absolutely do understand circumstantial evidence, but continue to think whatever you like. Cheers.

 

[beccalecca1]

You seem to keep repeating the wrong Google search! The search was "H.O.W. T.O. M.A.K.E. C.H.L.O.R.O.F.O.R.M" Once this topic came up at trial, I Googled chlorophyll spelled different ways and not ONCE did chloroform come up in any search.

I'm not sure how my search for chlorophyll to see if how to make chloroform came up is wrong versus your search for chlorophyll looking for chloroform. It's the same search. And, nothing came up in relations to making chloroform. So, what wrong Google search am I repeating?

.How could GA have access to the car when Casey hadn't been seen by him in 31 days? Casey was telling her mother she was in Tampa, Jacksonville, etc. And exactly WHEN was GA supposed to have ran over this squirrel? If GA didn't have access to the car for 31 days, how could HE have possibly ran over a squirrel, as Casey told her friends?

GA had seen Casey, that we know for sure, on June 24, 2008. So, at the very least we know GA did see Casey during that 31 days. And, by his testimony of that day he admitted to having his own set of keys for the car. Or, is all of that being discounted now too?

I don't recall, but I want to say that there was another time she was in the house and he knew about it... but I could be wrong.

You SERIOUSLY think that it was Ricardo Morales that did these searches? :banghead: Why in hell would RM search "neck-breaking", "household weapons"? Anyone that thinks RM did those searches is seriously stretching the imagination!

Please re-read my post. I said during trial I "thought" RM was over there because those sounded like searches a guy would do. And, I don't believe that is a stretch of any imagination. During trial I posted a lot in another forum (youtube) and found out that Shovel is a term used in an Xbox game. So, that search along with the others led me to believe it was RM. There is nothing abnormal about that, nothing.

IMO, the pro-verdict posters clearly DO NOT understand circumstantial evidence!!! You seem to forget that every time JB challenged the "circumstantial evidence", Jeff Ashton cross-examined the witness and made it clear that the evidence was just that.....evidence! IMO, it seems that the pro-verdict posters want concrete proof, not circumstantial evidence that clearly would've lead to a guilty verdict had there been a jury that didn't share one brain! :banghead:

When JA cross-examines a witness doesn't mean that it is 100% definitive true evidence. If that were the case, JB got to cross examine many witnesses also, confirming whatever point he was trying to make. Was his cross-examinations thrown in the wind because it was JB? Not IMO.

 

[yolorado]

Just as the trial confirmed for me that Caylee's death was not accidental, this thread has confirmed for me that at least one juror knew more about the case than he/she admitted and entered the courtroom with an opinion and agenda already well formed. The extraordinary leaps the pro-verdict supporters are making are staggering in the depth and breadth of unsubstantiated rumor and misinformed bias they appear to spring from.

Interesting coincidence, isn't it?

 

[Sustained]

I don't think anybody here says there wasn't circumstantial evidence. The problem is you can't connect it to KC alone. I just don't understand why people can't even consider thinking about that and focus on the evidence that was admitted into the court room.

Here we go again ... I guess since you believe we can't connect it to FCA alone, that GA must be involved ... correct ?

Did GA not report his granddaughter missing for 31 days if he was aware that she was actually missing ?
Did GA lie about his whereabouts between 6/16 and 7/15 ?
Did GA drive the Sunfire when the dead body was in the car ?
Did GA get a Bella Vita tattoo ?
Did GA say that Caylee called him on 7/15 ?
Did GA google 'how to make chloroform', 'household weapons', and 'neck breaking' on the home computer ?
Did GA leave the Sunfire at the Amscot and not call anyone in the family to come and get it ?
Did GA go out and dance in a hot body contest after Caylee went missing ?
Did GA call/text his friends and tell them that FCA hit a dead squirrel with the car causing a horrible smell ?
Did GA try and borrow a shovel from the neighbor the day after Caylee went missing ?
Did GA lie to police repeatedly to deflect attention away from himself ?
Did GA disappear from his house for 31 days when normally he would have been there everyday ?
Did GA have anything to gain by killing Caylee and dumping her body in a swamp ?
Did GA have a conversation with Lee where he said "I'm just a spiteful old guy' ?

Show me the trial evidence where any of the above is true !!!!

Let me help you with FCA's connection to the murder ....

No missing child report for 31 days + lies to police/friends/family + partying & hanging out with college guys sans Caylee + tattoo + sole access to the Sunfire between 6/16-6/27 + computer searches for chloroform + deleting incriminating computer searches + shovel + chloroform/dead body in trunk of Sunfire + Caylee hair in Sunfire + access to Henkel tape,laundry bag & plastic bags from Anthony garage + "spiteful b*tch " conversation with Lee + no effort to search for Caylee + leaving garbage in trunk of car at Amscot near dumpster + jailhouse interviews "My whole life has been taken from me", etc.

Sum all of that up and you get a spiteful b*tch that took the life of her child b/c her life was not going as planned.

Speculative doubt seems to be running rampant in this thread as it was in the jury room ... there is zero doubt in my mind that FCA killed her child and dumped the body in a swamp for animals to eat. That, in and of itself, shows what a "good" mother she was ... what a mockery of justice this whole trial turned out to be ....

 

[Italy]

Here we go again ... I guess since you believe we can't connect it to FCA alone, that GA must be involved ... correct ?

Did GA not report his granddaughter missing for 31 days if he was aware that she was actually missing ?
Did GA lie about his whereabouts between 6/16 and 7/15 ?
Did GA drive the Sunfire when the dead body was in the car ?
Did GA get a Bella Vita tattoo ?
Did GA say that Caylee called him on 7/15 ?
Did GA google 'how to make chloroform', 'household weapons', and 'neck breaking' on the home computer ?
Did GA leave the Sunfire at the Amscot and not call anyone in the family to come and get it ?
Did GA go out and dance in a hot body contest after Caylee went missing ?
Did GA call/text his friends and tell them that FCA hit a dead squirrel with the car causing a horrible smell ?
Did GA try and borrow a shovel from the neighbor the day after Caylee went missing ?
Did GA lie to police repeatedly to deflect attention away from himself ?
Did GA disappear from his house for 31 days when normally he would have been there everyday ?
Did GA have anything to gain by killing Caylee and dumping her body in a swamp ?
Did GA have a conversation with Lee where he said "I'm just a spiteful old guy' ?

Show me the trial evidence where any of the above is true !!!!

Let me help you with FCA's connection to the murder ....

No missing child report for 31 days + lies to police/friends/family + partying & hanging out with college guys sans Caylee + tattoo + sole access to the Sunfire between 6/16-6/27 + computer searches for chloroform + deleting incriminating computer searches + shovel + chloroform/dead body in trunk of Sunfire + Caylee hair in Sunfire + access to Henkel tape,laundry bag & plastic bags from Anthony garage + "spiteful b*tch " conversation with Lee + no effort to search for Caylee + leaving garbage in trunk of car at Amscot near dumpster + jailhouse interviews "I have lost my whole life", etc.

Sum all of that up and you get a spiteful b*tch that took the life of her child b/c her life was not going as planned.

Speculative doubt seems to be running rampant in this thread as it was in the jury room ... there is zero doubt in my mind that FCA killed her child and dumped the body in a swamp for animals to eat. That, in and of itself, shows what a "good" mother she was ... what a mockery of justice this whole trial turned out to be ....

And to add to the list:

Did GA claim that Zenaida Gonzalez had held him down and taken Caylee by force?
Did GA have a Timer 55 password?
Did GA delete the damning computer searches?
Did GA claim he used "Zanny" the nanny

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I'm not sure how my search for chlorophyll to see if how to make chloroform came up is wrong versus your search for chlorophyll looking for chloroform. It's the same search. And, nothing came up in relations to making chloroform. So, what wrong Google search am I repeating?

To be clear, the SA never claimed that someone searched "chloroform" in the Google search utility and "how to make chloroform" popped up as a result. The computer forensics revealed that someone typed "how to make chloroform" in the search utility. That was evident by the historical URL that results from such a search:

http ://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=13&gs_id=1d&xhr=t&q=
how+to+make+chloroform&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&pbx=
1&oq=how+to+make+c&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.
2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=1178&bih=821

CA "claimed" that she typed "chloraphyll" in the google search utility and the list of pages included chloroform pages. Did not happen. Cannot happen.



GA had seen Casey, that we know for sure, on June 24, 2008. So, at the very least we know GA did see Casey during that 31 days. And, by his testimony of that day he admitted to having his own set of keys for the car. Or, is all of that being discounted now too?

I don't recall, but I want to say that there was another time she was in the house and he knew about it... but I could be wrong.

And, as the testimony reveals, Casey would not allow George to even retrieve something from the trunk of the car. He could not get near it.


Please re-read my post. I said during trial I "thought" RM was over there because those sounded like searches a guy would do. And, I don't believe that is a stretch of any imagination. During trial I posted a lot in another forum (youtube) and found out that Shovel is a term used in an Xbox game. So, that search along with the others led me to believe it was RM. There is nothing abnormal about that, nothing.

This is nothing but speculation.



When JA cross-examines a witness doesn't mean that it is 100% definitive true evidence. If that were the case, JB got to cross examine many witnesses also, confirming whatever point he was trying to make. Was his cross-examinations thrown in the wind because it was JB? Not IMO.

I think you have to consider the content of the cross examination. IMO

Responses in Green above

 

[logicalgirl]

It seems a rather subjective conclusion to me as to whether there was irrefutable evidence. Much of it was refutable in my opinion.

Many people who agree with the verdict, and who have posted on this thread, have looked at the evidence and were not convinced by it.



I believe that many of the pro-verdict posters clearly understand circumstantial evidence--much of which was expertly challenged by the defense. The jury, and many of us who agree with the verdict, were (and are) free to interpret, regard or disregard any of the evidence presented.

BBM - Exactly. Experts who offered the evidence each agreed. and in the end, the majority of the DT Experts agreed with the SA Experts. Legal minds and legal experts have written lengthy articles disagreeing with the verdict.

But you disagree because it is your opinion. You have a right to your opinion. But I defer to the experts.

 

[Baznme]

Sheesh........I'm exhausted!

 

[NotRocketSighence]

You seem to keep repeating the wrong Google search! The search was "H.O.W. T.O. M.A.K.E. C.H.L.O.R.O.F.O.R.M" Once this topic came up at trial, I Googled chlorophyll spelled different ways and not ONCE did chloroform come up in any search.

Interesting. I just began typing out the word chlorophyll into Google. As soon as I got to chlor and as far as chloroph BOTH chlorophyll and chloroform came up. See for yourself in these two screen shots.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36530577/Chlor... Google Search.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36530577/Chloroph... Google Search.JPG

I get that Cindy claimed she searched only the word chlorophyll and not how to make chlorophyll and that the actual search issue testified about what how to make chloroform. I am responding to your claim in the quote above where you said you googled chlorophyll and not once did chloroform come up. Perhaps not once you type the entire word out, but absolutely "as you type it out"