The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

Baznme · Aug 2, 2011

thedeviledadvocate said:
I agree with the verdict. There have been numerous posts of some who agree with the verdict and why, and many who don't and why. Both points of view have merit. I could list the all the reasons why I agree with the verdict again, as I have in a number of past posts, however, <modsnip>. There is one poll that has 56% who disagree and 44% who agree. That poll is as accurate as any other poll in the mainstream media. On this site, which is an advocate for children, the percentage is probably closer to 85 to 90% who disagree and 10 to 15% who agree.

We just returned from a week's vacation in Miami. I have a very independent, smart, but just too friendly 9 year old granddaughter, and I was paranoid every minute she was out of my sight. LOL. Part of the reason for my paranoi, was from reading about so many tragic events that are posted on this site. Knowing how many children of all ages go missing every year makes me very paranoid (cautious, is probably a better word ). I am just as para..... er cautious here at home in the big city, because children disappear in a heartbeat. The point I am trying to make is that those of us who frequent this site, love children, and when someone does something bad to a child, we want the person responsible for the bad thing to pay for harming the child.

I do not now, nor have I ever believed that anyone murdered Caylee. I believe Caylee drown in the pool on the morning of the 16th in June of 2008. I believe both GA and KC were in the house when this tragedy occurred. I agree with the verdict, because there is no way to determine which of these two were responsible for Caylee at the time.

That being said, I think they should have called 911. There are very few reasons I can think of as to WHY they did not call 911. The only reasons I can think of are very bad, very, very bad, but not murder. That was the beginning of the snowball that got out of control. When neither GA nor KC called 911, the snowball started rolling, and one bad thing led to another. Whether it was grief, trying to hide some dark secret, fear of CA, or just plain panic, leaving Caylee's body in the woods seems like a terrible thing to do. Then the bad behavior, the bad checks, and then the lying to police. All of which would have been avoided had either KC or GA called 911 in the first place.

Caylee died of a drowning accident. Depending on what was happening inside the A's home at the time Caylee drown, would determine who was truly responsible. If GA was still asleep, and KC was on the phone or computer, then KC was responsible. If KC asked GA to watch Caylee for a few while she showered, then GA was responsible. If this family is as dysfunctional as it sometimes seems to be, who could ever really know what happened that morning, even if GA or KC did a tell all interview, who could believe either of them? Not me.

If KC is just a dumb kid, who wasn't paying attention to her child, and her child drowned, she will live with that guilt the rest of her life. If she sells her story, either by book, interviews, or movie rights, and she makes enough to pay the state off (saving the taxpayers money), to pay TES and to pay any other costs for the multitude that is suing her, and to get herself some good counseling, then I don't have a problem with that.

If KC is the mastermind murderess that many think she is, and she got away with murder, well, she will find out what a spiteful Bi*#& Karma is. I won't have a problem with that either. I do believe those who are truly evil on this earth, will never rest in peace.

As for the jurors, in the polls I saw pre verdict, the overall average guess was it would take less than 3 hours of deliberation. Most people thought it would not take very long to come to a decision. It took this jury 3 and a half times longer than what most people thought it would take. They unanimously agreed to not guilty on the first 3 counts, and guilty on the last 4 counts. I think they came to the right decision based on the testimony and evidence presented at trial. In its simplest form, the state did not present the evidence to prove a premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and on counts 2 and 3, the jury could not determine whether KC or GA was responsible for Caylee, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the time Caylee died. So, in my opinion, they made the right decision on all counts.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I just want to say that your post is both tactful and sensitive to either side, "guilty" or "not guilty" believers. While reading it, I realized there have been a lot of people that were "sitting on the fence" at one point, then believing she was "guilty", back and forth at least a few times. I know that I thought even before JB put out the opening remarks, maybe it was an accident, she got scared and proceeded on with her life seemingly as normal to keep the inevitable truth from coming out. But, then the DT came up with the extenuating circumstances (allegedly) and it threw my room for "doubt" out the window. All I'm saying is this really. No matter what I believe, I admit to have been one of those "sitting on the fence" people at more than point throughout the course of this case. So, rather than feeling as though I had to take a side in the end, no I did not. I chose to but, I think sometimes posters feel they have to choose the white hat or the black. Your post made me realize that I really do not know what happened in reality. I don't believe it is absolutely as JB put it but, maybe something in between. We may never know. It's just a shame that Caylee became secondary in importance. Seems the verdict did.

PeteyGirl · Aug 2, 2011

thedeviledadvocate said:
We just returned from a week's vacation in Miami. I have a very independent, smart, but just too friendly 9 year old granddaughter, and I was paranoid every minute she was out of my sight. LOL. Part of the reason for my paranoia, was from reading about so many tragic events that are posted on this site. Knowing how many children of all ages go missing every year makes me very paranoid (cautious, is probably a better word ).

The statistical majority of children who go missing or are murdered, if this board is representative of life, are missing or dead because of either their mother or father (figure).

It's part of the detective's toolbox to take into consideration that dead children are most likely dead because a parent killed them, not a stranger. A verdict cannot be given based on statistics, of course, but the common sense and reason that leads up to a verdict certainly should include this fact.

Caylee was never a missing or abducted person. Someone whom she trusted killed her or carelessly allowed her death.

I am just as para..... er cautious here at home in the big city, because children disappear in a heartbeat. The point I am trying to make is that those of us who frequent this site, love children, and when someone does something bad to a child, we want the person responsible for the bad thing to pay for harming the child.

Yep, me too

One thing to remember is that this forum also contains professionals in LE and hundreds of laypeople who, because of their interest in the subject, are as astute in their layperson perceptions as the professionals. There's no way to generalize folks here so narrowly

, though concern and seeking justice for a tragic death/murder is definitely 100%.

I do not now, nor have I ever believed that anyone murdered Caylee. I believe Caylee drown in the pool on the morning of the 16th in June of 2008.

In spite of this premise being disallowed by Judge Perry in the closing arguments as having a conspicuous lack of evidence, even circumstantial?

I believe both GA and KC were in the house when this tragedy occurred. I agree with the verdict, because there is no way to determine which of these two were responsible for Caylee at the time.

<modsnip>

<modsnip>

Caylee drowning the the pool and being dumped in a swamp by people who testified in agony to have loved and cherished her is a STORY, it is a wormie on the hook the defense through out to create reasonable doubt. Without actual evidence to back up this story, that's all it is, a story. And knowing the "tellers" of this story, it is fictional :innocent:

Folks who are not mentally ill with some psychotic illness (ruled out by six shrinks) tend to be behave in predictable ways. It is this fact that allows most crimes to be solved. We are predictable, and there are some behaviors and motivations we can dream up in fictional novels but IRL, they just don't happen.

IMO, the above is just another way of describing common sense. I can see plot like yours happening in a Jodi Picoult novel, but not in real life.

That being said, I think they should have called 911. There are very few reasons I can think of as to WHY they did not call 911. The only reasons I can think of are very bad, very, very bad, but not murder. That was the beginning of the snowball that got out of control. When neither GA nor KC called 911, the snowball started rolling, and one bad thing led to another. Whether it was grief, trying to hide some dark secret, fear of CA, or just plain panic, leaving Caylee's body in the woods seems like a terrible thing to do. Then the bad behavior, the bad checks, and then the lying to police. All of which would have been avoided had either KC or GA called 911 in the first place.

I completely agree that this is probably accurate as heck to describe the "snowball effect". Inserting George Anthony in the mix, though . . . why? Wouldn't the detectives have ascertained at least a HINT of this and followed through? I believe they followed through alright, and ruled George out, like, in August, maybe even July. That train left the station three years ago. The cops did their jobs, George wasn't a suspect, end of story.

<modsnip>, mine is based upon concrete evidence and fact (read: I sincerely believe, within reason, OSCO did a good enough job from the get go, so, my premise is based upon the evidence they gathered).

<modsnip>.

Caylee died of a drowning accident. Depending on what was happening inside the A's home at the time Caylee drown, would determine who was truly responsible. If GA was still asleep, and KC was on the phone or computer, then KC was responsible. If KC asked GA to watch Caylee for a few while she showered, then GA was responsible. If this family is as dysfunctional as it sometimes seems to be, who could ever really know what happened that morning, even if GA or KC did a tell all interview, who could believe either of them? Not me.

You do believe them, if you believe the unsubstantiated story presented by the defense team. Your premise is practically identical. Again, if you came up with this prior to the defense opening statement, I apologize. In the last three years of reading the document dumps (and remarkably not listening to talking heads), Caylee was kidnapped by a Zanny.

<modsnip>.

It doesn't. It can't. It is a story told by a very, erm, questionable story teller.

It's not in the same league as three years worth of discovery, and defending it as if it was can be respected as a personal opinion, but not much else.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

My entire response to you is not so much my opinion, but an attempt to explain why "pro-verdict" posts appear to be in the minority. They don't hold water when the folks here put on their sleuther caps and test them against the evidence provided. I haven't read one that has, though I have adjusted my perspective as convincing stuff is presented

askfornina · Aug 2, 2011

Baznme said:
I just want to say that your post is both tactful and sensitive to either side, "guilty" or "not guilty" believers. While reading it, I realized there have been a lot of people that were "sitting on the fence" at one point, then believing she was "guilty", back and forth at least a few times. I know that I thought even before JB put out the opening remarks, maybe it was an accident, she got scared and proceeded on with her life seemingly as normal to keep the inevitable truth from coming out. But, then the DT came up with the extenuating circumstances (allegedly) and it threw my room for "doubt" out the window. All I'm saying is this really. No matter what I believe, I admit to have been one of those "sitting on the fence" people at more than point throughout the course of this case. So, rather than feeling as though I had to take a side in the end, no I did not. I chose to but, I think sometimes posters feel they have to choose the white hat or the black. Your post made me realize that I really do not know what happened in reality. I don't believe it is absolutely as JB put it but, maybe something in between. We may never know. It's just a shame that Caylee became secondary in importance. Seems the verdict did.

very nice post baznme

PeteyGirl · Aug 2, 2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by librazone

There is one aspect concerning the jury of which I am certain and it is this...if I had young children I would never ever allow them to be around any of these jurors.

Click to expand...

Wow. That seems pretty harsh. Just because they didn't feel that the SA proved BARD that Casey was guilty of murdering Caylee, it means they are dangerous people and shouldn't be around children?

Yeah that's kinda harsh :crazy: but it seems more like hyperbole than anything.

I didn't think the SA proved beyond reasonable doubt that Casey murdered Caylee in cold blood with chloroform and duct tape either. But they did prove Casey reacted with a "guilty conscience", as the baby's body was hidden, and then the "disappearance" lied about.

They presented convincing testimony from two medical examiners, experts in reconstructing the circumstances of human death, that accidents are reported 100% of the time. OK, maybe 99.8% of the time. All things considered, this wasn't one of those 0.2%'s, not with the kind of evidence they had.

OK . . . so that this jury MISSED this most obvious forest-for-the-trees moment, I too have to wonder if finding one's way out of a paper sack was an issue for certain folks.

I won't go so far as to say I wouldn't trust them with a young child. I would say I wouldn't trust their judgment (as a group) with important moral decisions. Which one makes a lot of in the care of a child. They were given the responsibility to determine guilt, though. Not provide a healthy, safe day care environment. In that, they failed, and I doubt the day care would be very trustworthy come to think of it . . .

thedeviledadvocate · Aug 3, 2011

Sustained said:
With all due respect ...

Please help us out and publish these polls where it was said that it would take less than 3 hours of deliberation time. I'd really like to know who conducted the poll and who was polled.

Please also tell us what those very bad, bad reasons might be as to why someone would not call 911 if Caylee was not murdered. Please also tell us why a loving grandfather and supposedly loving mother would dump their loved one in a swamp for animals to chew on. I'm sure you couldn't even imagine that happening to your 9-year-old granddaughter, could you ?

Please continue and tell us why a woman would sit in jail for almost 3 years because of an accident. I know it's hard to believe that a loving mother would harm her child, but by all outside accounts, Darlie Routier was a loving mother as was Susan Smith as was Andrea Yates.

Apparently after the verdict was read, all the polls changed from how long will deliberations take, to Was the Verdict Right or Wrong.

As for the very, very bad reason, I'm going to answer that question with a question to you: If GA was sexually molesting KC the morning of the 16th, and Caylee slipped outside and drowned while that was going on, do you think GA would have called 911? Would GA answer honestly on the stand if he was guilty of molesting his daughter?

No, I can't imagine my 9 year old granddaughter or any of my other grandchildren being dumped in a swamp.

I can't imagine why anyone whose daughter had drowned, or who had murdered their daughter would "hide" the child in a swamp less than half a mile from their home, less than 20 feet from the road. That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Did Ga or KC or both wrap Caylee up in garbage bags like she was one of their pets? That defies common sense as well. Why risk making chloroform when NyQuil can put a two year old to sleep? Why wrap duct tape around a baby's mouth when you could put a half a dozen strong sedatives in her food or drink and easily kill her. Why drive around with a body in your trunk for 2 to 3 days? Why not call 911 if your baby drowned? Why run around town for a month acting like your baby is still alive, why not just leave town and say the baby was kidnapped in New York or Los Angeles? Why get a tattoo? If you murdered someone, why lay them in a wooded area just a hop skip and a jump from your house? Why murder your baby when your mother will watch her? How could anyone in their right mind do any one of these things, let alone all of them?

As for why KC sat in jail for 3 years because of an accident, well, I don't think she had much of a choice. I think they offered her a plea deal contingent upon her admitting to murdering her daughter, and she would not take the plea deal because she would not admit to something she did not do. After turning down the plea deal because they were offering murder, and she was saying it was an accident, she had no choice but to sit and wait for her trial.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

mimmy03 · Aug 3, 2011

Sustained said:
Please continue and tell us why a woman would sit in jail for almost 3 years because of an accident.

Exactly! FCA is a narcissist and there's no way she would sit in jail for 3 years for an accident.

pcrum12 · Aug 3, 2011

PeteyGirl said:
The statistical majority of children who go missing or are murdered, if this board is representative of life, are missing or dead because of either their mother or father (figure).

It's part of the detective's toolbox to take into consideration that dead children are most likely dead because a parent killed them, not a stranger. A verdict cannot be given based on statistics, of course, but the common sense and reason that leads up to a verdict certainly should include this fact.

Caylee was never a missing or abducted person. Someone whom she trusted killed her or carelessly allowed her death.

Yep, me too

One thing to remember is that this forum also contains professionals in LE and hundreds of laypeople who, because of their interest in the subject, are as astute in their layperson perceptions as the professionals. There's no way to generalize folks here so narrowly , though concern and seeking justice for a tragic death/murder is definitely 100%.

In spite of this premise being disallowed by Judge Perry in the closing arguments as having a conspicuous lack of evidence, even circumstantial?

<modsnip>

<modsnip>

Caylee drowning the the pool and being dumped in a swamp by people who testified in agony to have loved and cherished her is a STORY, it is a wormie on the hook the defense through out to create reasonable doubt. Without actual evidence to back up this story, that's all it is, a story. And knowing the "tellers" of this story, it is fictional :innocent:

Folks who are not mentally ill with some psychotic illness (ruled out by six shrinks) tend to be behave in predictable ways. It is this fact that allows most crimes to be solved. We are predictable, and there are some behaviors and motivations we can dream up in fictional novels but IRL, they just don't happen.

IMO, the above is just another way of describing common sense. I can see plot like yours happening in a Jodi Picoult novel, but not in real life.

I completely agree that this is probably accurate as heck to describe the "snowball effect". Inserting George Anthony in the mix, though . . . why? Wouldn't the detectives have ascertained at least a HINT of this and followed through? I believe they followed through alright, and ruled George out, like, in August, maybe even July. That train left the station three years ago. The cops did their jobs, George wasn't a suspect, end of story.

<modsnip>, mine is based upon concrete evidence and fact (read: I sincerely believe, within reason, OSCO did a good enough job from the get go, so, my premise is based upon the evidence they gathered).

<modsnip>.

You do believe them, if you believe the unsubstantiated story presented by the defense team. Your premise is practically identical. Again, if you came up with this prior to the defense opening statement, I apologize. In the last three years of reading the document dumps (and remarkably not listening to talking heads), Caylee was kidnapped by a Zanny.

<modsnip>.

It doesn't. It can't. It is a story told by a very, erm, questionable story teller.

It's not in the same league as three years worth of discovery, and defending it as if it was can be respected as a personal opinion, but not much else.

My entire response to you is not so much my opinion, but an attempt to explain why "pro-verdict" posts appear to be in the minority. They don't hold water when the folks here put on their sleuther caps and test them against the evidence provided. I haven't read one that has, though I have adjusted my perspective as convincing stuff is presented

BBM: Actually, you are wrong. HHJP did allow the drowning - it was the molestation that he stated could not be used in closing.

Kavya01 · Aug 3, 2011

:
Originally Posted by librazone
Quote:
There is one aspect concerning the jury of which I am certain and it is this...if I had young children I would never ever allow them to be around any of these jurors.
Wow. That seems pretty harsh. Just because they didn't feel that the SA proved BARD that Casey was guilty of murdering Caylee, it means they are dangerous people and shouldn't be around children?

I too would not let them be around my just 4 and 5 year old boys. I sometimes feel I need additional eyes in the back AND sides of my head, Roadrunner legs and 12 arms.
I need a needle sharp brain and constant alertness, and MOST of all, dead truthfulness and genuineness at all times. A fraud is pegged right away by a kid and loses all respect.

In addition I constantly need to present a good example about the littlest things, because they act as I DO, not as I say. Any slight slip up on my side can take two weeks of hard labor to undo

No wonder parenting is so tiring :great:

ANY way. I say this to illustrate that to me this jury was lax, did not have the sense to recognize its limitations nor the courage to own up to them, put their own needs first, were not prepared to take on and not committed to their responsibility.
20 seconds of letting up with two pre k ers can lead to a death, a loss, a dismemberment, a guilt which I could not carry through life.
In my opinion only of course, these people don't have the dedication it would take to guard like hawks and set good examples.

Sorry for the verbosity. Only possible because they are sitting right behind me with their breakfast, within arm's reach, with their daddy

gxm · Aug 3, 2011

thedeviledadvocate said:
Apparently after the verdict was read, all the polls changed from how long will deliberations take, to Was the Verdict Right or Wrong.

As for the very, very bad reason, I'm going to answer that question with a question to you: If GA was sexually molesting KC the morning of the 16th, and Caylee slipped outside and drowned while that was going on, do you think GA would have called 911? Would GA answer honestly on the stand if he was guilty of molesting his daughter?

(snipped for space)

BBM.

What evidence was presented during the trial that GA was molesting KC when Caylee drowned? That scenario is so far beyond conjecture that it enters the realm of fantastical. This is not reasonable doubt. This is pure fiction.

yolorado · Aug 3, 2011

gxm said:
BBM.

What evidence was presented during the trial that GA was molesting KC when Caylee drowned? That scenario is so far beyond conjecture that it enters the realm of fantastical. This is not reasonable doubt. This is pure fiction.

Yep, some theories seem to me so far down the rabbit hole that, any minute, I expect Mad Hatter will pop up with a pot of tea. Wild speculations appear to completely ignore evidence, reason and common sense in favor of pure ozone fantasy, AND they seem to have prevailed in this case! WHAT a country!

That Jose Baez was able to cry RAPE in a court of law against (I believe) a hapless and flawed human being, but a completely innocent witness- without the presumption of innocence, without a scintilla of proof, in what, imo, he likely KNEW was a lie is hideously unjust and should be actionable. Sadly apparently, it isn't, just another crumbling stone in our broke justice system. Accusing someone in such a fashion is akin to rape itself! Baez should be ashamed, but I'm betting he isn't a whit. WHAT a country! Doesn't it make us all so proud!?

pcrum12 · Aug 3, 2011

gxm said:
BBM.

What evidence was presented during the trial that GA was molesting KC when Caylee drowned? That scenario is so far beyond conjecture that it enters the realm of fantastical. This is not reasonable doubt. This is pure fiction.

IMO any theory is conjecture. No one KNOWS what happened, what didn't happen. Just because there's "no proof" that she was molested, there is "no proof" she wasn't.

Sustained · Aug 3, 2011

pcrum12 said:
BBM: Actually, you are wrong. HHJP did allow the drowning - it was the molestation that he stated could not be used in closing.

Let's be clear here ... what HHJP allowed was pictures of Caylee on the pool ladder and swimming in the pool ... there was zero evidence of an actual drowning. If I were to submit a picture of Caylee riding her tricycle in front of the A's house on Hopespring Drive, is that evidence that she was hit by a car while riding that bike ?

Trident · Aug 3, 2011

yolorado said:
Yep, some theories seem to me so far down the rabbit hole that, any minute, I expect Mad Hatter will pop up with a pot of tea. Wild speculations appear to completely ignore evidence, reason and common sense in favor of pure ozone fantasy, AND they seem to have prevailed in this case! WHAT a country!

That Jose Baez was able to cry RAPE in a court of law against (I believe) a hapless and flawed human being, but a completely innocent witness- without the presumption of innocence, without a scintilla of proof, in what, imo, he likely KNEW was a lie is hideously unjust and should be actionable. Sadly apparently, it isn't, just another crumbling stone in our broke justice system. Accusing someone in such a fashion is akin to rape itself! Baez should be ashamed, but I'm betting he isn't a whit. WHAT a country! Doesn't it make us all so proud!?

Actually, yes, it does make me proud. It makes me proud that 12 human beings obeyed the law and rendered a verdict they, AND I, believe was "just" despite what many others may feel.

I'm very proud that 12 others saw GA as a bit "untruthful", possibly. I certainly saw him that way all the way through this trial and before that I saw him on live TV as a man seemingly prone to violence and threatening - reporters, protesters, anyone who asked a question he didn't like. My OPINION, of course.

I think the jurors did a fine job, a proper and true job, with what they had to work with. Had I been on that jury, rest assured there NEVER would have been a guilty verdict with what "evidence" the State presented - it just was NOT there.

Sustained · Aug 3, 2011

Respectfully snipped ....

thedeviledadvocate said:
Apparently after the verdict was read, all the polls changed from how long will deliberations take, to Was the Verdict Right or Wrong.

As for the very, very bad reason, I'm going to answer that question with a question to you: If GA was sexually molesting KC the morning of the 16th, and Caylee slipped outside and drowned while that was going on, do you think GA would have called 911? Would GA answer honestly on the stand if he was guilty of molesting his daughter?

Yes, GA would have called 911 for his granddaughter Caylee. And I remind you again, there was no evidence of GA molesting FCA. Zero, nilch, nada ... so the jury could not consider the "fake" molestation charge in trial. And based on no evidence of molestation, how could the jury have considered your 911 theory ? Anyone would have called 911 in the case of a child drowning ...

No, I can't imagine my 9 year old granddaughter or any of my other grandchildren being dumped in a swamp.

I can't imagine why anyone whose daughter had drowned, or who had murdered their daughter would "hide" the child in a swamp less than half a mile from their home, less than 20 feet from the road. That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Did Ga or KC or both wrap Caylee up in garbage bags like she was one of their pets? That defies common sense as well. Why risk making chloroform when NyQuil can put a two year old to sleep? Why wrap duct tape around a baby's mouth when you could put a half a dozen strong sedatives in her food or drink and easily kill her. Why drive around with a body in your trunk for 2 to 3 days? Why not call 911 if your baby drowned? Why run around town for a month acting like your baby is still alive, why not just leave town and say the baby was kidnapped in New York or Los Angeles? Why get a tattoo? If you murdered someone, why lay them in a wooded area just a hop skip and a jump from your house? Why murder your baby when your mother will watch her? How could anyone in their right mind do any one of these things, let alone all of them?

Who says FCA didn't made chloroform and didn't get it another way ? She had ample time out of custody to dispose of it. Was LE able to check every Internet source of chloroform to see if FCA had purchased it ? And if she did make it and had to buy acetone, could LE have checked every Home Depot/Lowes/Sally Beauty Supply in a 100 mile radius of Orlando ? Maybe she paid cash, who knows ? IMO, FCA intended to kill Caylee ... hence, the chloroform. You, like a lot of people, have GA somehow involved in this conspiracy ... but where is the evidence that GA was complicit ? Where is GA's consciousness of guilt ? FCA did everything possible to display her consciousness of guilt, but that's not enough for some.

There are some statistics out there that mothers who kill their children bury or leave them near the home. As far as why FCA killed Caylee, IMO, her contentious relationship with her mother holds the key. FCA was stealing from everyone and CA threatened to throw her out and
take custody of Caylee. There is also the jealousy factor of how Caylee got all of the attention and poor little FCA was left out in the cold.

As for why KC sat in jail for 3 years because of an accident, well, I don't think she had much of a choice. I think they offered her a plea deal contingent upon her admitting to murdering her daughter, and she would not take the plea deal because she would not admit to something she did not do. After turning down the plea deal because they were offering murder, and she was saying it was an accident, she had no choice but to sit and wait for her trial.

What do you mean she didn't have a choice ? If what you say is true, why wouldn't FCA tell police about the drowning and come clean about the molestation ? Do you really think this narcisstic, spiteful woman would sit in jail facing the DP to cover for her father ? Gimme break ...

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

My responses to your post in blue. Anyone can take any case and make up unrealistic scenarios as to what might have happened. I could say that Scott Petersen was part of a cult and Laci was sacrificed as part of a cult ritual, but unless I have evidence to that fact, the theory may have well as come from the Twilight Zone. Same for your drowning and molestation theory ... a picture on a pool ladder means nothing ... the lack of a 911 call means everything. IMO, it's all about what is reasonable to believe based on the evidence presented.

Sustained · Aug 3, 2011

Respectfully snipped ...

Trident said:
Actually, yes, it does make me proud. It makes me proud that 12 human beings obeyed the law and rendered a verdict they, AND I, believe was "just" despite what many others may feel.

The jurors did not obey the law. They considered the punishment when deliberating on the verdict.

I'm very proud that 12 others saw GA as a bit "untruthful", possibly. I certainly saw him that way all the way through this trial and before that I saw him on live TV as a man seemingly prone to violence and threatening - reporters, protesters, anyone who asked a question he didn't like. My OPINION, of course.

Prone to violence ? Really ? Did GA go to jail for assault ? I'd like to see what you would have done with all of the protesters outside of your house, or the constant badgering by the media.

I think the jurors did a fine job, a proper and true job, with what they had to work with. Had I been on that jury, rest assured there NEVER would have been a guilty verdict with what "evidence" the State presented - it just was NOT there.

The jurors had plenty to work with and just didn't work with it. To speculate that GA was involved with NO EVIDENCE is ludicrous and these jurors should hang their heads in shame.

Comments in green ... yep, what a great job the jury did putting a narcissistic, sociopathic <mod snip> back on the streets to harm again.
If the jury did such a great job, why didn't these iconic 12 stock around and field questions from the media about their decision ? Not one of them had the guts to stick around and tell us why they just couldn't put the puzzle together given all of the great circumstantial evidence they had to work with.

Trident · Aug 3, 2011

Sustained said:
Respectfully snipped ...

Comments in green ... yep, what a great job the jury did putting a narcissistic, sociopathic <mod snip> killer back on the streets to harm again.
If the jury did such a great job, why didn't these iconic 12 stock around and field questions from the media about their decision ? Not one of them had the guts to stick around and tell us why they just couldn't put the puzzle together given all of the great circumstantial evidence they had to work with.

First off, I didn't see any GREAT circumstancial evidence. I saw some circumstantial evidence that the DT poked holes right through. So much for that.

Secondly, is there a law, other than what "we" may want that says the jurors have to stick around and answer anyone's questions? Why should they? What I did see was a lot of threats, and that makes me sick to my stomach.

To me, the jury did their job, and BRAVO to them.

gxm · Aug 3, 2011

pcrum12 said:
IMO any theory is conjecture. No one KNOWS what happened, what didn't happen. Just because there's "no proof" that she was molested, there is "no proof" she wasn't.

Which is why I said that the molestation-led-to-drowning scenario was "far beyond conjecture," "fantastical," and "pure fiction."

Evidence was presented at trial that GA saw KC and Caylee leave that day. Evidence was also presented at trial that KC admitted to being the last person with Caylee (as the nanny KC claimed to drop Caylee off at did not exist). An imaginary person can not be the last adult seen with Caylee, hence it is the real live person (KC) who claims to have dropped the child off at the imaginary nanny. This is rock solid circumstantial evidence.

GA was not on trial for molestation. If he had been KC would have had to take the stand. And, only then, would we be able to decide who is telling the truth. But I seriously doubt that KC will ever press charges against the man her lawyer claims has molested her since she was a young child. And the reason KC will not press charges is because the molestation is a fabrication and that particular lie has already served its purpose. We'll only hear about it again if/when it's trotted out at her next murder trial.

raysgirl1126 · Aug 3, 2011

thedeviledadvocate said:
I agree with the verdict. There have been numerous posts of some who agree with the verdict and why, and many who don't and why. Both points of view have merit. I could list the all the reasons why I agree with the verdict again, as I have in a number of past posts, however, <modsnip>. There is one poll that has 56% who disagree and 44% who agree. That poll is as accurate as any other poll in the mainstream media. On this site, which is an advocate for children, the percentage is probably closer to 85 to 90% who disagree and 10 to 15% who agree.

We just returned from a week's vacation in Miami. I have a very independent, smart, but just too friendly 9 year old granddaughter, and I was paranoid every minute she was out of my sight. LOL. Part of the reason for my paranoi, was from reading about so many tragic events that are posted on this site. Knowing how many children of all ages go missing every year makes me very paranoid (cautious, is probably a better word ). I am just as para..... er cautious here at home in the big city, because children disappear in a heartbeat. The point I am trying to make is that those of us who frequent this site, love children, and when someone does something bad to a child, we want the person responsible for the bad thing to pay for harming the child.

I do not now, nor have I ever believed that anyone murdered Caylee. I believe Caylee drown in the pool on the morning of the 16th in June of 2008. I believe both GA and KC were in the house when this tragedy occurred. I agree with the verdict, because there is no way to determine which of these two were responsible for Caylee at the time.

That being said, I think they should have called 911. There are very few reasons I can think of as to WHY they did not call 911. The only reasons I can think of are very bad, very, very bad, but not murder. That was the beginning of the snowball that got out of control. When neither GA nor KC called 911, the snowball started rolling, and one bad thing led to another. Whether it was grief, trying to hide some dark secret, fear of CA, or just plain panic, leaving Caylee's body in the woods seems like a terrible thing to do. Then the bad behavior, the bad checks, and then the lying to police. All of which would have been avoided had either KC or GA called 911 in the first place.

Caylee died of a drowning accident. Depending on what was happening inside the A's home at the time Caylee drown, would determine who was truly responsible. If GA was still asleep, and KC was on the phone or computer, then KC was responsible. If KC asked GA to watch Caylee for a few while she showered, then GA was responsible. If this family is as dysfunctional as it sometimes seems to be, who could ever really know what happened that morning, even if GA or KC did a tell all interview, who could believe either of them? Not me.

If KC is just a dumb kid, who wasn't paying attention to her child, and her child drowned, she will live with that guilt the rest of her life. If she sells her story, either by book, interviews, or movie rights, and she makes enough to pay the state off (saving the taxpayers money), to pay TES and to pay any other costs for the multitude that is suing her, and to get herself some good counseling, then I don't have a problem with that.

If KC is the mastermind murderess that many think she is, and she got away with murder, well, she will find out what a spiteful Bi*#& Karma is. I won't have a problem with that either. I do believe those who are truly evil on this earth, will never rest in peace.

As for the jurors, in the polls I saw pre verdict, the overall average guess was it would take less than 3 hours of deliberation. Most people thought it would not take very long to come to a decision. It took this jury 3 and a half times longer than what most people thought it would take. They unanimously agreed to not guilty on the first 3 counts, and guilty on the last 4 counts. I think they came to the right decision based on the testimony and evidence presented at trial. In its simplest form, the state did not present the evidence to prove a premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and on counts 2 and 3, the jury could not determine whether KC or GA was responsible for Caylee, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the time Caylee died. So, in my opinion, they made the right decision on all counts.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

As usual I completely agree and as usual you put my exact feeling into words so much better than I could even attempt too!!! You rock!! Thank you very much! :rocker::rocker::rocker:

grandmaj · Aug 3, 2011

Guys......... remember Casey was acquitted. For purposes of posting at WS is you feel that she killed Caylee you must say IMO or I believe. You cannot call her a baby killer or a murderer. She was acquitted. You must say in your opinion.

Likewise if you feel she drowned you must say it is your belief since there was no proof offered that she drowned.

Sustained · Aug 3, 2011

Trident said:
First off, I didn't see any GREAT circumstancial evidence. I saw some circumstantial evidence that the DT poked holes right through. So much for that.

Secondly, is there a law, other than what "we" may want that says the jurors have to stick around and answer anyone's questions? Why should they? What I did see was a lot of threats, and that makes me sick to my stomach.

To me, the jury did their job, and BRAVO to them.

IMO, consciousness of guilt is GREAT circumstantial evidence and there was plenty of consciousness of guilt displayed by FCA. Lying to police, not reporting your child missing for 31 days, Bella Vita tattoo, the list goes on and on.

A few definitions that apply here :

Consciousness of Guilt

In a criminal prosecution, consciousness of guilt is not its own form of evidence, but is a type of circumstantial evidence, which comprises its probative value on the theory that, whether deliberately or accidentally discovered, the conduct of the accused (usually after the crime) provides a rich vein of inculpatory data that can be a factual base upon which to infer the guilty mind of the accused.Common examples of consciousness of guilt evidence include: lies, flight (from the scene or in a broader context from the jurisdiction), escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment (of body or weapon, for example), assumption of a false name. While the United States recognizes that four categories of conduct have been historically admissible as circumstantial evidence of the mens rea of the accused: disposing of the evidence, giving false exculpatory statements, flight, and evidence of the accused's demeanor, it is also the case that subjective evidence may be found in any human gesture,vocal or other, that betrays an awareness of guilt, a culpable purpose or criminal design, or the guilty knowledge of inculpatory facts. Such evidence is usually coupled with other evidence and used to infer the mens rea of the crime, from which the guilt of the crime itself is sometimes then inferred. If the factual allegations of the case are not in question, the only inference needed from the conduct would be the mens rea.

Consciousness of guilt belongs to the broader category of circumstantial evidence.

And read this little gem about the Anthony computers if you need another example of FCA's consciousness of guilt.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/06/06/caylee-anthony-case-consciousness-of-guilt/

The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Justice for Stacy

Former Member

Justice for Stacy

Justice for Stacy

Former Member

Active Member

Hampton Roads, Virginia

Former Member

Justice for Stacy

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics