The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[KarmaGet'em]

Umm...:waitasec: I don't recall ever stating I agree with the verdict because Dr. Drew stated something. In fact, I've posted many times about the actual evidence in this case and what the evidence meant to me. I'm pretty sure I haven't included Dr. Drew into any of those posts.

I didn't need Dr. Drew to know CA lied about the searches. Her work records prove it. If she had the same punches in and out every day that would be a different story, but it clearly looked like someone was punching in and out her time card because they were odd times in and out. She was at work IMO.

The only thing that threw the searches off for me was the "hypovolemia, hemorrage, meningial artery (something.. I can't remember but it was something to do with the main artery in your brain). That's not something that a normal person would search, IMO.

I must be confused then (this thread is getting a little unwieldly). I thought you doubted the evidence that KC made those chloroform searches.

 

[beccalecca1]

I must be confused then (this thread is getting a little unwieldly). I thought you doubted the evidence that KC made those chloroform searches.

I've made 2 posts (that I recall) about the chloroform search. First one was me saying during trial I thought RM had made the searches because of the "neck breaking" "household weapons" "head injuries", etc. It just sounded like something a guy would search and on top of that his photo on myspace during the same time frame, I just thought the chloroform search could've been a google image search. But, I was wrong I'm guessing.

I also said because of the time of day the searches were done, GA would've been at home and had access to the computer also. But, that doesn't mean he did it.

I have no clue who searched it honestly. None.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I've made 2 posts (that I recall) about the chloroform search. First one was me saying during trial I thought RM had made the searches because of the "neck breaking" "household weapons" "head injuries", etc. It just sounded like something a guy would search and on top of that his photo on myspace during the same time frame, I just thought the chloroform search could've been a google image search. But, I was wrong I'm guessing.

I also said because of the time of day the searches were done, GA would've been at home and had access to the computer also. But, that doesn't mean he did it.

I have no clue who searched it honestly. None.

BBM - I believe the SA also provided proof from GA's workplace to show that he was at work at the time of the searches.

 

[beccalecca1]

BBM - I believe the SA also provided proof from GA's workplace to show that he was at work at the time of the searches.

I don't recall seeing that during trial. Do you have a link?

 

[MissJames]

In the post you quoted, I was just explaining the difference between Autofill and the Google Instant feature, since they are 2 separate features.

But, to answer your question, that's correct. What we see now won't be indicative of what was showing up in the autofill in 2008. In fact, what we see today won't be what we see next month, or next year...maybe even next week. It just depends of the popularity of what is being searched at the time.

It's kind of like Twitter 'trends', for those of you who tweet. Google is trying to be smart and predict what we want to search for based on what is being searched by all users across the globe.

Does that make sense? Sometimes when I speak nerd, people look at me like I'm speaking Russian or something.

:gthanks:

 

[Peepers]

I dont think the jury discarded or did not believe what was presented...there just wasnt enough of it for them to conclude how Caylee died. Not one of the jurors who spoke said they thought KC was "innocent", what they said is they were not convinced beyond what they perceived as reasonable doubt. It does not mean the jury thought she was innocent.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I don't recall seeing that during trial. Do you have a link?

I remember watching the trial where SA or LDB presented the work records for both GA and CA. But I just don't have the time to watch all the videos to find it. It was one of the last things they presented I think.

Anyways, here is a document from clickorlando.com that detailed the timeline of everything in the case. The chloroform searches are mentioned on page 8. It states that George was home on Mar. 17, 2008, but his work record showed that he was at work on Mar 21, 2008. (from 7 am to 5 pm). That was the day that "how to make chloroform" was searched.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2011/0224/26984466.pdf

 

[PeteyGirl]

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

The detectives, police officers, grand jury members, even the defense team themselves found no one else but FCA to connect the death of Caylee to. In the three years before the trial, in all the investigation going on on BOTH sides, not one single person other than FCA could be connected via hard or circumstantial evidence to the death of Caylee.

Even the defense team could not bring forth a legitimate "other suspect" that Judge Perry allowed them to present in their closing statement.

In all that effort, you'd THINK if the evidence did indeed even SUGGEST someone else, SOMEONE would have pounced on it. Yanno?

This is the nature of evidence. And also, evidence of human nature, in that WANTING to believe something is a more powerful indicator of what a person believes than all the "hard" evidence in the world.

There's no law against your particular take on the verdict I see that perhaps many pro-verdict folks have distrust for the discovery process. Perhaps you (the generic you) have a suspicion that the detectives, expert witnesses, the prosecution team, the grand jury, et al et al, conducted themselves poorly and carelessly. Maybe even singling Casey Anthony out for persecution (understandable, she's about the least charismatic person imaginable, an "easy scapegoat").

I personally think the verdict is a travesty, but that aside, I guess I trust(ed) the motives behind the myriad folks who brought this case to trial. Not blindly, but I believe in this day and age, where nothing is hidden for long, the rotten apples would have been tossed out on their ear.

In my own personal opinion, in the light of the evidence presented, a pro-verdict position says more about the ability of an individual to process information than about the quality of the information itself. Again, just my very personal opinion.

 

[MissJames]

The detectives, police officers, grand jury members, even the defense team themselves found no one else but FCA to connect the death of Caylee to. In the three years before the trial, in all the investigation going on on BOTH sides, not one single person other than FCA could be connected via hard or circumstantial evidence to the death of Caylee.

Even the defense team could not bring forth a legitimate "other suspect" that Judge Perry allowed them to present in their closing statement.

In all that effort, you'd THINK if the evidence did indeed even SUGGEST someone else, SOMEONE would have pounced on it. Yanno?

This is the nature of evidence. And also, evidence of human nature, in that WANTING to believe something is a more powerful indicator of what a person believes than all the "hard" evidence in the world.

There's no law against your particular take on the verdict I see that perhaps many pro-verdict folks have distrust for the discovery process. Perhaps you (the generic you) have a suspicion that the detectives, expert witnesses, the prosecution team, the grand jury, et al et al, conducted themselves poorly and carelessly. Maybe even singling Casey Anthony out for persecution (understandable, she's about the least charismatic person imaginable, an "easy scapegoat").

I personally think the verdict is a travesty, but that aside, I guess I trust(ed) the motives behind the myriad folks who brought this case to trial. Not blindly, but I believe in this day and age, where nothing is hidden for long, the rotten apples would have been tossed out on their ear.

In my own personal opinion, in the light of the evidence presented, a pro-verdict position says more about the ability of an individual to process information than about the quality of the information itself. Again, just my very personal opinion.

I have also noticed the general connection between pro verdict and (for lack of a better word) distrust or dislike of LE and the SA's . I guess the same can be said of the reverse .

 

[gladiatorqueen]

There's no law against your particular take on the verdict I see that perhaps many pro-verdict folks have distrust for the discovery process. Perhaps you (the generic you) have a suspicion that the detectives, expert witnesses, the prosecution team, the grand jury, et al et al, conducted themselves poorly and carelessly. Maybe even singling Casey Anthony out for persecution (understandable, she's about the least charismatic person imaginable, an "easy scapegoat").

I don't personally believe the state acted poorly or carelessly, but I think a majority of the evidence was particularly risky in the way it was presented.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/15/casey.anthony.forensic.evidence/index.html

This one too:

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/delibera...hony-really-scary-evidentiary-precedents.html

A cause of death that cannot be determined by the State’s medical examiner, but can be asserted on the stand by an anthropologist who has never done an autopsy. The morphing of a projected child’s photo into a picture of her skull. The description of a colorless decompositional fluid (which is typically black). Air samples that contain "the smell of death." A phantom image of heart sticker that “disappeared” before the examiner could return to photograph it.

I also believe that many of the witnesses were questionable from the Anthonys to Kronk to the ME who seemed to be coming up with a manner of death that was distrustful based on the fact that the remains were shifted by Kronk and definitely the weather.

 

[Salem]

Please continue here and read the opening post: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6978097#post6978097"]The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Thanks,

Salem