The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[jandkmom]

Originally Posted by LinTX

You fell for the tricks JB pulled by phrasing his repeated questions as "were the results significantly lower than your control" and his (and Dr. Furton's) bit about 'ewww, qualitative' but if you go back and listen to his testimony *and* both redirects by JA, you'll see he never meant what you thought regarding comparison to cleaning products. Dr. Vass did not only do air samples from the trunk...he also extracted from the actual carpet and ran the same GC-MS tests on it that the FBI did (in addition to his tests on air from the trunk - which were the 'new' science, and LIBS). If you side with Dr. R on chloroform, you are sitting there right beside Dr. Vass. Dr. Vass is not junk science - that's why the FBI and other government agencies pay him to do research for them - but I understand being cautious about that part of his testimony since it was new to the courts. He is considered one of the foremost experts on decomposition and JB should be disgraced for pulling the stunts he pulled with the SA's witnesses.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...&postcount=449

And when the FBI guy did the air test, hadn't the carpet been removed? I think JA asked him if he knew that and he didn't know that it had.

[LinTX]

Originally Posted by jandkmom

And when the FBI guy did the air test, hadn't the carpet been removed? I think JA asked him if he knew that and he didn't know that it had.

Dr. R had actual samples from the carpet, but I can't quite put my finger on who that was...maybe someone else might remember the who and what on that?

eta: did a quick search and found it. That was Dr. Michael Sigman, the guy that is now a professor but had once worked under Dr. Vass at the Body Farm. He found weak results, but then had to admit his samples were taken 4 days after the carpet had been removed ...one of JB's paid 'experts'

[NotRocketSighence]

Originally Posted by krkrjx

I do not have a problem with a jury that finds fault with a piece of evidence, and thus does not give that piece of evidence much consideration. In this case, the problem is that when all the evidence is taken as a whole it screams guilt! This jury did not deliberate long enough, IMO, to have gone over all the evidence. They never questioned any testimony for purposes of clarification, even though some of it was scientific in nature and not easy to understand. It is as if the jury discarded all evidence and all testimony, without giving any of it any consideration at all. They did, apparently, give much consideration to the defense opening statement, something that by law they were not supposed give any credence at all.

Something is radically wrong here!

Question. If the jury found her guilty would you still say the same thing ?

Thanks in advance.

[krt]

Yes the jury royally screwed up and failed to take their position seriously or understand general jury instructions. Mastercard should do a commercial based on Casey Anthony. Mom and Dad 25 cents, Caylee 1 cent......getting away with murder? PRICELESS!

[krkrjx]

Originally Posted by NotRocketSighence

Question. If the jury found her guilty would you still say the same thing ?

Thanks in advance.

Nope, because if the jury had found her guilty, it would mean they had considered all the evidence and testimony, and had NOT considered the defense opening statement.

Which, by jury instructions, is what they should have done!

I will, however, guess that had the jury come back with a verdict of guilty after only a few hours' deliberation, the defense would have jumped on that in an appeal, claiming they could not have properly considered all the evidence and testimony in that amount of time. How sad it is that in our justice system only one side has recourse to right a wrong.

[lauriej]

Originally Posted by beccalecca1

Why is it easier to think a mother murdered her child, drove around with her for a few days, then dumped her child in a swamp..... and not easier to think the child accidently drowned?

..looking at the big picture, and all of the evidence----there is much more to support scenario A than scenario B.

..is it easier to think that a young mother whose child had accidentally drowned would call 911?...... or keep this to herself for 3 years while sitting in a jail cell, playing the roll of the dice that she would NOT get the Death Penalty @ trial?

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Originally Posted by NotRocketSighence

Question. If the jury found her guilty would you still say the same thing ?

Thanks in advance.

Considering all of the inane statements and obvious confusion they have revealed in their interviews, I would be shocked no matter what they decided as their final verdict.

I don't believe anyone who posts here would feel justice had been done if it had been accomplished through the back door! The implication is offensive!

[krkrjx]

The few jurors who have spoken out so far clearly show that they did not undersand the meaning of "reasnable doubt," or that the state was not required to prove time of death. I realize the one who made the most outrageous statements was an alternate who did not vote, but the others have spoken who did vote have shown that they may have confused shadow of a doubt with reasonable doubt.

IMO.

[lauriej]

Originally Posted by DesSands

P.S. Outside of my earlier post, when did she grieve? After more than 3 yrs. of following this case, you mean to tell me I missed that?

..don't panic----you didn't miss anything.

..we just heard that kc is saying NO to interviews! ( which is odd----as the media just happens to be saying NO to her too...)

..her reason-----she has never properly grieved over losing caylee.

..so---that grief is to be kicking in any day now. ( if what we're hearing isn't a mis-truth ).

( question-----if a person grieves in private, do they still poke themselves in the eye and check for fake tears? )

[Trapshooter]

Originally Posted by beccalecca1

Why is it easier to think a mother murdered her child, drove around with her for a few days, then dumped her child in a swamp..... and not easier to think the child accidently drowned?

It isn't easier to think a mother murdered her child. That sentence in itself is hard to type. There was absolutely NO evidence presented that there was an ACCIDENTAL drowning. The key word here being ACCIDENT. Why would the child need to be dumped in a swamp if she drowned?

Originally Posted by Sustained

And how do you know that the sociopathic symptoms didn't show up much earlier and were ignored by the A's ?

IMO, the sociopathy reared it's ugly head many times throughout the course of Casey's life. That's why GA & CA treated her with "kid gloves" and "walked on eggshells" around her. They didn't want to upset Casey for fear of her wrath! Remember Cindy trying to calm Casey in one of the jailhouse interviews? "Casey, calm down sweetheart...."

Originally Posted by MissJames

My 15 year old son died when his siblings were 3,5,16,20,24and 27.He had cousins and many friends.NONE of them acted like nothing was wrong,let's go rent some videos.NONE of them pretended like he was hanging out somewhere else,let's go clubbing . We only had to explain death to our 5 year old (3 year old is developmentally disabled).He saw a therapist for 6 visits because he was present when his brother was found and it was traumatic. Now he's 11 and still talks about it.
School friends collected at our home,cried together ,wanted to participate in the funeral service and were obviously grieving. They made photo collages and had his soccer uniform framed for us.Many of them were unable to return to school for weeks,which created a problem,since it wasn't a legal excuse,but were grieving,torn up,unable to concentrate.

I'm not seeing Casey as a grieving anything. Not a grieving mom,for sure.Not a grieving young adult or a grieving child. She looks more like someone who was happy and having a great time.She looks carefree . Her actions after her own child died look exactly like someone who didn't care at all that her baby was dead. She wasn't grieving like a child or "ugly coping",she was celebrating her new "beautiful life".

MissJames my heart goes out to you. Every time I see you post, my heart hurts so much for you. You are always close to my heart and in my prayers.

Originally Posted by krkrjx

I do not have a problem with a jury that finds fault with a piece of evidence, and thus does not give that piece of evidence much consideration. In this case, the problem is that when all the evidence is taken as a whole it screams guilt! This jury did not deliberate long enough, IMO, to have gone over all the evidence. They never questioned any testimony for purposes of clarification, even though some of it was scientific in nature and not easy to understand. It is as if the jury discarded all evidence and all testimony, without giving any of it any consideration at all. They did, apparently, give much consideration to the defense opening statement, something that by law they were not supposed give any credence at all.

Something is radically wrong here!

Great points krkrjx!!! The jury did NOT have enough time to read the jury instructions, much less deliberate. If this jury had understood that it was not the Prosecution's job to prove cause and time of death, we may be writing a completely different story today! This jury was LAZY!!! They didn't want to "work" or "think" to reach a REASONABLE verdict.

Originally Posted by LinTX

Dr. R had actual samples from the carpet, but I can't quite put my finger on who that was...maybe someone else might remember the who and what on that?

eta: did a quick search and found it. That was Dr. Michael Sigman, the guy that is now a professor but had once worked under Dr. Vass at the Body Farm. He found weak results, but then had to admit his samples were taken 4 days after the carpet had been removed ...one of JB's paid 'experts'

LOL IIRC wasn't Dr. Tim Huntington an "understudy" of Dr Vass? Dr. Huntington thought he was George Clooney on the witness stand and tried to "school" the jurors and the audience. Jeff Ashton made sure all that backfired right in his face!

[krkrjx]

Two of the jurors have stated that because the prosecution did not prove time of death the jury instructions said that they could not convict.

But reality is that the jury instructions did not require any such thing!

It looks to me like the jurors hated George and went ahead and assumed that Baez's opening statement is what must have happened. There was absolutely no evidence presented at this trial of an accident, and certainly duct tape did not get on Caylee's skull by way of an accident. I will say I could accept not guilty on Murder One because premeditation is difficult to prove when cause of death is not known. However, there were two other felony charges that should have been given serious consideration. Twelve jurors could not possibly all believe Casey is innocent. Something else was going on in their minds, and I think it was $$$$$$.

[Trapshooter]

Originally Posted by krkrjx

Two of the jurors have stated that because the prosecution did not prove time of death the jury instructions said that they could not convict.

But reality is that the jury instructions did not require any such thing!

It looks to me like the jurors hated George and went ahead and assumed that Baez's opening statement is what must have happened. There was absolutely no evidence presented at this trial of an accident, and certainly duct tape did not get on Caylee's skull by way of an accident. I will say I could accept not guilty on Murder One because premeditation is difficult to prove when cause of death is not known. However, there were two other felony charges that should have been given serious consideration. Twelve jurors could not possibly all believe Casey is innocent. Something else was going on in their minds, and I think it was $$$$$$.

I agree krkjx! I believe the jury hated George the minute Baez accused him of molesting Casey.

In retrospect, since no evidence was ever presented on this molestation, I wonder why Judge Perry didn't instruct the jury to completely disregard Baez's opening statements? Could the Judge even do that?

[krkrjx]

Originally Posted by Trapshooter

I agree krkjx! I believe the jury hated George the minute Baez accused him of molesting Casey.

In retrospect, since no evidence was ever presented on this molestation, I wonder why Judge Perry didn't instruct the jury to completely disregard Baez's opening statements? Could the Judge even do that?

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

[froginTtown]

I 100% disagree...!!!!!!!
I quit following this case at about 1 1/2 years....
I came back for the trial with an open mind....!!!
I was shocked by what Baez said... and as much as I hate to admit it, it had me thinking about a few things... but then I had to shake off the confusion he put before me...!!! because NONE of it was evidence, and I had to keep reminding myself of it...!!! I really wished the pros. would have reminded them of it too..!!! and that the case was circumstancial and that they needed to connect the dots too...!!!
yeah...100% works for me....
but she will reap more hell being on the outside, than in prision...!!!!!

[froginTtown]

Originally Posted by froginTtown

I 100% disagree...!!!!!!!
I quit following this case at about 1 1/2 years....
I came back for the trial with an open mind....!!!
I was shocked by what Baez said... and as much as I hate to admit it, it had me thinking about a few things... but then I had to shake off the confusion he put before me...!!! because NONE of it was evidence, and I had to keep reminding myself of it...!!! I really wished the pros. would have reminded them of it too..!!! and that the case was circumstancial and that they needed to connect the dots too...!!!
yeah...100% works for me....
but she will reap more hell being on the outside, than in prision...!!!!!

In the mean time...: they are fighting over a DEAD FISH................

..............................................................

[lauriej]

Originally Posted by pcrum12

I think it was just as much evidence as the computer search after being on myspace seeing your boyfriend post reference to chloroform and researching it 1 time not 84 and in MARCH not June.

Just as much evidence as LE using unproven never before used in a court of law air samples that lo and behold showed SHOCKING level of chloroform but yet fbi stated level was normal to cleaning product.

Just as much evidence as finding tape attached to hair but presenting it as covering mouth and nose while acknowledging that animals had disturbed the remains, RK had disturbed the remain, and that this tape held the mandible even though plant growth could have as well.

It is all inference. Not proven IMO.

The same can be said about the PT theory as is stated about the DT theory, that if you manipulate the "evidence" enough you can make or Break a case.

Alot has been said about Casey not grieving. However, I have witnessed Casey grieve during the jailhouse tapes and during the trial. Yes she lied, yes she covered up, and yes she at times appeared aloof, but I still see some grief and fear. She at times works at not showing any emotion and that could be coping mechanism. Her personality reeks of denial just like CA does.

Alot has been stated about Casey living it up staying with her boyfriend and partying down. I disagree. Yes she stayed at TL's, she didn't want to face her Mother. She didn't want to face losing Caylee. Yes she went to Fusion a couple weekend nights with the boyfriend she was staying with, trying to appear normal. Yes, she drank to help numb her fear and grief. However, I've seen no evidence of her partying down for 31 days.

Of course, you know what opinions are like, everyone has one. Those that do not agree with the verdict will probably never change their stance. I can only speak for myself, but I could be swayed should I actually see Evidence not inference that she killed the child.

I apologize for rambling on. Didn't realize I had wrote a book lol.

MOO MOO MOO

..respectfully------you, and the jury DID see evidence.

..every word of testimony, every pic, video, recording, all physical items etc. etc. were entered in , and are ----evidence.

..and yes, judgeP did allow in the pics of caylee on the ladder, caylee holding the handle of the door, and cindy's testimony ( i can't remember if she said she DID or MAY have, left the pool ladder up.)

..he did instruct baez, and the jury, that b/c no evidence of molestation was entered into evidence @ trial-----it could not be used in closing arguments---and was not to be considered by the jury.

..he also instructed them that with ALL evidence-----they could give it a lot of weight, a little weight, or no weight.

( personally------i would give the pool ladder/patio door pics NO weight, as evidence of a drowning----and cindy's testimony ZERO weight, since the SAO impeached her so many times it would be impossible to reasonably believe what was/wasn't true in any of the many times she took the stand.)

..you might benefit from reading this article..

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticl...n=1&hbxlogin=1
Reasonable doubts in the Casey Anthony trial?

The National Law Journal
July 26, 2011

The Anthony trial was an intricate circumstantial evidence case, but it shouldn't have flummoxed a jury of even borderline intelligence. Why did these jurors so lack the courage of their convictions (literally) that they were not willing to fight for their convictions for even one full calendar day?

It seems to me that the jurors collectively certainly did not carefully evaluate the evidence in the manner that this circumstantial evidence required — when such careful examination could have resulted in a guilty verdict.

None of the reported comments of the several jurors who have communicated, in one form or another, has said anything that inspires confidence that they knew what they were talking about, understood the difference between inferences that could be drawn from evidence as opposed to mere speculation or properly understood what the prosecution was required to prove.

..you say that you DON'T want inferences-------jurors are SUPPOSED to do just that------take ALL of the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, apply common sense and reach logical conclusions.

The more the jurors talk — and make tragically incorrect, dare I say uninformed, statements such as that the case lacked "hard" evidence, that the time of death and manner of death was not shown and that the jury largely ignored all of Casey's lies as having nothing to do with the case because it shed no light on the specific day that Caylee died — the less their verdict and decision-making deserves to be respected.

..i actually saw the jury Foreman! say this-----that he couldn't consider the 31 days ----only kc's actions the day in question, june 16th mattered.... and not what her actions were after.

..you say that "she didn't party down for 31 days".

..no-one has ever said that she did.

..not "wanting to face her mother" might fly if she was 14 and broke curfew-----but we're talking about a grown 22 year old woman----and a dead "drowned" child. that's NO excuse for not calling 911--and taking off.

The government's case, when viewed properly, should have carried the day. What reasonable doubt was there? Poor little Caylee was not abducted by aliens and then deposited, dead, a short distance from home, with duct tape over her face.

The universe of possible persons who killed Caylee was small. The evidence established that.

..i could quote the article all night long--but i wont. it's a lengthy ---but excellent---read. ( he goes into the stuff re: george---baez's opening statement, jury selection etc.)

..also--did you happen to see judge strickland's interview with (WESH) bob kealing post-trial?

..one portion:

..judgeS stated that this jury did not "seem to know" that circumstantial evidence IS (emphasis him) evidence. and that most murder cases ARE tried ON circumstantial evidence.

..the jury ( and us, if we're reaching our own verdicts ) are to take all of the evidence presented, all of the circumstances, make those inferences, connect those dots ( yes jennifer ford-----connect them yourself!!! the SAO does NOT have to do that FOR you.)

..i did.
..i could not see the accidental drowning/cover-up at all.
..i could see a selfish, lying, manipulating bit*h who was going to tony's for movie night/sleep over with benefits------one way or another.

[Caligram]

Originally Posted by lauriej

..respectfully------you, and the jury DID see evidence.

..every word of testimony, every pic, video, recording, all physical items etc. etc. were entered in , and are ----evidence.

..and yes, judgeP did allow in the pics of caylee on the ladder, caylee holding the handle of the door, and cindy's testimony ( i can't remember if she said she DID or MAY have, left the pool ladder up.)

..he did instruct baez, and the jury, that b/c no evidence of molestation was entered into evidence @ trial-----it could not be used in closing arguments---and was not to be considered by the jury.

..he also instructed them that with ALL evidence-----they could give it a lot of weight, a little weight, or no weight.

( personally------i would give the pool ladder/patio door pics NO weight, as evidence of a drowning----and cindy's testimony ZERO weight, since the SAO impeached her so many times it would be impossible to reasonably believe what was/wasn't true in any of the many times she took the stand.)

..you might benefit from reading this article..

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticl...n=1&hbxlogin=1
Reasonable doubts in the Casey Anthony trial?

The National Law Journal
July 26, 2011



..you say that you DON'T want inferences-------jurors are SUPPOSED to do just that------take ALL of the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, apply common sense and reach logical conclusions.



..i actually saw the jury Foreman! say this-----that he couldn't consider the 31 days ----only kc's actions the day in question, june 16th mattered.... and not what her actions were after.

..you say that "she didn't party down for 31 days".

..no-one has ever said that she did.

..not "wanting to face her mother" might fly if she was 14 and broke curfew-----but we're talking about a grown 22 year old woman----and a dead "drowned" child. that's NO excuse for not calling 911--and taking off.



..i could quote the article all night long--but i wont. it's a lengthy ---but excellent---read. ( he goes into the stuff re: george---baez's opening statement, jury selection etc.)

..also--did you happen to see judge strickland's interview with (WESH) bob kealing post-trial?

..one portion:

..judgeS stated that this jury did not "seem to know" that circumstantial evidence IS (emphasis him) evidence. and that most murder cases ARE tried ON circumstantial evidence.

..the jury ( and us, if we're reaching our own verdicts ) are to take all of the evidence presented, all of the circumstances, make those inferences, connect those dots ( yes jennifer ford-----connect them yourself!!! the SAO does NOT have to do that FOR you.)

..i did.
..i could not see the accidental drowning/cover-up at all.
..i could see a selfish, lying, manipulating bit*h who was going to tony's for movie night/sleep over with benefits------one way or another.

ITA You said it all....this was an obscene unethical trial by perjury.

[Caligram]

From the IQ level of some jury members I think that the word "circumstantial" needs to be substituted in the jury instructions and replaced with an easier word, or two, or a few words linked together: like "maybe" or "it looks like it" or "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
I find it deeply disturbing that if sworn juries can treat/mistreat case evidence and deliberations like this, it may indicate that they have been entrusted with too much power. If this proves to be the case, some judicial reform is urgently needed. Consider how differently you would feel if the accused had done away with a few of your children, and the jury said um, so sorry, there were no witnesses so let the defendant go.

justice::

IMO

[2goldfish]

Originally Posted by beccalecca1

Why is it easier to think a mother murdered her child, drove around with her for a few days, then dumped her child in a swamp..... and not easier to think the child accidently drowned?

IMO easier in a moral sense it may be (sanctity of motherhood and what not) but if you follow ALL EVIDENCE then accident is speculation, murder is not.


this whole "drowning" does my head in, it does. this seems to have a running implication that drowning is always an accident and never a murder. I dont believe there was any drowning but even had an autopsy been able to show a drowning in NO way does that, coupled with everything else, speak to an ACCIDENT.

[froginTtown]

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...!!!

[froginTtown]

This will be the last comment on make on this case.!!!
There are other missing people who derserve our attention......
I'm giving no more attention to the child murderer...!!!!!!
She is 100% guilty in my mind and will always be...!!
So enjoy "your own prision, Casey".. may you always have to look over your shoulder in fear of the unknown... and no amount of money will ever take that away.!!!!!

[beccalecca1]

Originally Posted by NSS

It was a Doctor on the HLN show with Dr Drew. He said that the immediate acceptance (shown by her behaviors) was suggestive of pre meditation for the reasons you already mentioned.

No offense, but I would rather find a source outside of HLN for my information. HLN had her convicted a long time ago, so naturally they would only put on professionals that agree with them.

[beccalecca1]

Originally Posted by NSS

My brother was diagnosed when he was 24. He and FICA could be twins.

The problem with diagnosing this disorder too early is that many of the 'symptoms' can be explained by so many other (non sociopathic) angsts of teendom.

My point on that post was that you have to have documented conduct issues prior to the age 15. You can be diagnosed at any point in life after 18, but it's not diagnosible if you just started the issues at 18. Chances are, there is something else going on.

[beccalecca1]

Originally Posted by MissJames

My 15 year old son died when his siblings were 3,5,16,20,24and 27.He had cousins and many friends.NONE of them acted like nothing was wrong,let's go rent some videos.NONE of them pretended like he was hanging out somewhere else,let's go clubbing . We only had to explain death to our 5 year old (3 year old is developmentally disabled).He saw a therapist for 6 visits because he was present when his brother was found and it was traumatic. Now he's 11 and still talks about it.
School friends collected at our home,cried together ,wanted to participate in the funeral service and were obviously grieving. They made photo collages and had his soccer uniform framed for us.Many of them were unable to return to school for weeks,which created a problem,since it wasn't a legal excuse,but were grieving,torn up,unable to concentrate.

I'm not seeing Casey as a grieving anything. Not a grieving mom,for sure.Not a grieving young adult or a grieving child. She looks more like someone who was happy and having a great time.She looks carefree . Her actions after her own child died look exactly like someone who didn't care at all that her baby was dead. She wasn't grieving like a child or "ugly coping",she was celebrating her new "beautiful life".

I'm sorry for your loss.

IMO, what was posted above was proper grieving. Grieving being handled the way it should be.

IMO, Casey was dealing with inappropriate/complicated grieving. On top of that, Casey has never had to deal with real life issues in the past, so I'm not surprised she handled it the way she did.

[beccalecca1]

Originally Posted by cuppy199

Wasn't the hair with the death band also tested by the FBI?

IIRC, the hair with the banding was "consistent" with post-mortem root banding, not conclusive.