The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
RR0004 said:
I think it has to do with introducing prior bad acts and all that stuff...like the check/ID fraud...not admissible.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Chablis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 ....
 
Chablis said:
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.
Click to expand...
: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!
 
margE said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
pcrum12 said:
Well, How do you know?
Click to expand...
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.
 
RR0004 said:
I think it has to do with introducing prior bad acts and all that stuff...like the check/ID fraud...not admissible.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
: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
Click to expand...

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:
 
mimmy03 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chablis said:
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
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
Chablis said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
LinTX said:
: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:
Click to expand...

Thank you ! Another MYTH laid to rest ,again.
 
Chablis said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
RR0004 said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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
 
LinTX said:
: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:
Click to expand...
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.:)
 
RR0004 said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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
 
LinTX said:
: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:
Click to expand...

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?
 
Baznme said:
So, can we agree that CM "perceived" guilt?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 107 more.
Total: 3,461 (members: 108, guests: 3,353)

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
3,353
Total visitors
3,461
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,393
Messages
17,968,295
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top