The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[RueMoira]

The fact that so many are so quick to offer up "others" as suspects in this case is, IMO, one of the reasons why this chick got off.

The murderer is usually the one who cleans up after his/herself. Who cleaned the trunk? The person who knew what needed to be cleaned up in the trunk. KC. Who vacuumed the trunk? The one who saw the maggots...KC. Who put trash in the trunk? The person who knew a smell needed to be masked...KC. Who spoke of dead squirrels? The person who knew her car was smelling like death. KC Who parked her car next to a dumpster? The person trying desperately to mask the smell of death...KC
If KC were a man (or even an unattractive middle aged woman) there would be no question of "who did this, or who did that?" Now would there.

 

[Sustained]

IMO, not bringing your child to the hospital with a high fever could be considered an accident. Not understanding at what point you take care of a fever yourself or involve the emergency room. This article also said that mothers often dispose of their children's bodies in the home or in their backyard. Down the street, around the corner into a swamp isn't really in your backyard.

Down and around the corner is close enough for me, especially since FCA used to play in that area and bury her other pets, i.e. fish, hamsters, etc

 

[HatesSociopaths]

The fact that so many are so quick to offer up "others" as suspects in this case is, IMO, one of the reasons why this chick got off.

The murderer is usually the one who cleans up after his/herself. Who cleaned the trunk? The person who knew what needed to be cleaned up in the trunk. KC. Who vacuumed the trunk? The one who saw the maggots...KC. Who put trash in the trunk? The person who knew a smell needed to be masked...KC. Who spoke of dead squirrels? The person who knew her car was smelling like death. KC Who parked her car next to a dumpster? The person trying desperately to mask the smell of death...KC
If KC were a man (or even an unattractive middle aged woman) there would be no question of "why would did this, or who did that?" Now would there.

Comparing this with the Scott Peterson case, I think that is the main difference. FCA was able to position herself as a confused, grieving mother, victimized by her father and brother. It was enough to make the jurors afraid to convict, some convinced she didn't do it.

Peterson was seen as a monster by the jury. He couldn't seduce his female jurors, who sympathized with his pregnant wife and were disgusted.

 

[gxm]

IMO, not bringing your child to the hospital with a high fever could be considered an accident. Not understanding at what point you take care of a fever yourself or involve the emergency room. This article also said that mothers often dispose of their children's bodies in the home or in their backyard. Down the street, around the corner into a swamp isn't really in your backyard.

No. It would not be considered an accident. A child who dies of fever dies of a natural cause, an illness, not an accident. It would be up to the state to decide whether to prosecute for medical neglect. Many believe that withholding medical treatment for a child is at worst murder, and at best child abuse. But an accident? Nope. I've never heard that word used to describe a fever.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-ci...ers_of_christ_church_back_into_spotlight.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-ci...be_sentenced_today_in_faith-healing_case.html

http://oregonfaithreport.com/2011/06/governor-signs-bill-ending-faith-defense/

Caylee's body was found close to home. KC tried the backyard but digging a grave proved harder than she thought it would be so she had to settle for another place to conceal the body and she picked one close by (down the street and around the corner), not far away (which I've never heard described as down the street and/or around the corner). Florida has no shortage of swamps. KC could have found a faraway one without much effort, but she chose close by instead.

 

[Sustained]

I just want to make sure I understand, because I have a completely different idea then what is being said.

So, if the jury didn't understand what Dr. Vass was getting at in his testimony, hypothetically even if they didn't understand after reading the transcript.... they're allowed to get clarification from someone? I was under the impression that all they're allowed to use during deliberations is their opinions, testimony, and evidence. They couldn't consult people outside of that; unless they're asking the judge for clarifications on the laws. Am I wrong in that assumption?

Just because they didn't understand doesn't make the testimony untruthful. If they had done their job correctly, they would have gone back over Dr. Vass' testimony with a fine-tooth comb and tried to make sense of it. If at that point, they could still not understand it, they could have discarded it ... but in all fairness after discarding Vass' testimony, they should not have considered the testimony of Dr. Furton either as offsetting. How could you possible consider a dissenting opinion when you didn't understand the original ?

The fact that they spent less than 10 hours deliberating and didn't ask to reread any trial testimony tells me that they didn't care enough to review the important evidence in this trial ... that, and the fact they came to court the 2nd day of delibs dressed to the nines knowing they would go home that day.

 

[BuzzieCat]

There actually was a story posted on one of these threads (not sure if it was on this one, but it was definitely on the 2nd thread) of a couple in Ohio who hid their child's death due to a high fever. They buried him under their front porch (IIRC). I could find the link if you'd like to read it.

I would be interested in reading more about that case. If you have more info or if I can look it up on the internet later, I will (I'm supposed to be working right now, heh heh). I would not see that death as an accident, though, which is what I believe Dr. G was referring to in her statistic. The fact that the couple tried to hide the death indicates to me that they realized, at least after the fact, that they should have tried to get the child medical help. To me that would rise to at least the level of child abuse unless it happened very quickly and there were almost no symptoms until the child suddenly died. Even then, they didn't call 911 - at some point it must have become apparent to them that the child was in distress. I would have to know more details, though.

 

[gxm]

Haven't found anything on the Ohio case that is referenced in the article. I'm only finding these two cases. In each the mothers were arrested. In the Genesis Sims case the father has also been charged and will be tried for first-degree murder.

Genesis Sims Case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/monique-lynch-sentenced-t_n_888577.html

Alexus Smothers Case:
http://www.carmitimes.com/area_news/x1797081095/Mom-concealed-body-lied-to-them-police

http://www.14wfie.com/story/1513583...was-found-in-crawl-space?clienttype=printable

 

[TorisMom003]

The fact that so many are so quick to offer up "others" as suspects in this case is, IMO, one of the reasons why this chick got off.

The murderer is usually the one who cleans up after his/herself. Who cleaned the trunk? The person who knew what needed to be cleaned up in the trunk. KC. Who vacuumed the trunk? The one who saw the maggots...KC. Who put trash in the trunk? The person who knew a smell needed to be masked...KC. Who spoke of dead squirrels? The person who knew her car was smelling like death. KC Who parked her car next to a dumpster? The person trying desperately to mask the smell of death...KC
If KC were a man (or even an unattractive middle aged woman) there would be no question of "who did this, or who did that?" Now would there.

Remember the car wash that KC pointed out to Tony on the way back from the airport? The one that she proudly told him she used to clean out his jeep while he was in NY? Wanna bet that KC used that car wash for more than just cleaning out Tony's jeep? It would make no sense to use anything at the Anthony home but there was a reason for KC to show Tony the place she used for his jeep. The jeep that she was not supposed to have been driving while he was away.

 

[beccalecca1]

Down and around the corner is close enough for me, especially since FCA used to play in that area and bury her other pets, i.e. fish, hamsters, etc

Casey never buried her pets there, Kiomarie did. Casey was present for at least 1 pet burial by Kiomarie with the heart stickers, etc.

 

[beccalecca1]

Just because they didn't understand doesn't make the testimony untruthful. If they had done their job correctly, they would have gone back over Dr. Vass' testimony with a fine-tooth comb and tried to make sense of it. If at that point, they could still not understand it, they could have discarded it ... but in all fairness after discarding Vass' testimony, they should not have considered the testimony of Dr. Furton either as offsetting. How could you possible consider a dissenting opinion when you didn't understand the original ?

The fact that they spent less than 10 hours deliberating and didn't ask to reread any trial testimony tells me that they didn't care enough to review the important evidence in this trial ... that, and the fact they came to court the 2nd day of delibs dressed to the nines knowing they would go home that day.

BBM

Why couldn't they accept testimony from an opposing expert who they understand? I'm sure they have every right to accept whoever's testimony they want to.

 

[Ssejors]

Not reporting your child missing for 31 days to the authorities is child neglect, at least in Florida.

This is why i dont understand why she was not at least charged with CHILD ABUSE!

SHE DID NOT REPORT CAYLEE MISSING!

CINDY DID!

Never once did FCA report Caylee missing, and at the very stinking LEAST she should have been found guilty of child abuse.

But the jury disregarded THAT because they were told that CAYLEE DROWN and GA disposed of the body for FCA.

So FCA isnt responsible for reporting an accident? a missing child? the improper disposal of a dead body????????

Just because these 12 JURORS!!!! did not have a VIDEO, a smoking GUN, a finger print, DNA evidence to prove WHO killed this child...THEY FOUND HER NOT GUILTY?


I think its totally criminal that she wasnt charged with CHILD ABUSE at least. She may not have ABUSED her child DAILY or more than once, But its sure as CHIT child abuse to NOT REPORT HER MISSING... OR NOT TELL ANYONE SHE DIED!!!!!!!!!!


Why WHy why whywhywhwywhy!

Im still so totally LIVID!

I am disgusted and can not FATHOM how 12 people sat down and in 11 hours INCLUDING TWO MEAL BREAKS!!!!!!!! Managed to Decide that FCA was NOT GUILTY. They didn't even bother to THINK ABOUT IT!... When I had heard that they had reached a verdict so early, i was distraught but my only thought was, GUILTY! Unanimous GUILTY! They obviously see the TRUTH.

But instead, They ate dinner, they slept on it, they ate breakfast, they reconvened then had lunch! THEN GAVE US THE VERDICT!


They should have written a flipping disclaimer to be read before the verdict...


"Warning : we didn't really bother to think about this, we just wanna get the F out of this court room, and we are too bloody cowardly to find her guilty and we don't know whats really going on here... please excuse our VERDICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[beccalecca1]

I would be interested in reading more about that case. If you have more info or if I can look it up on the internet later, I will (I'm supposed to be working right now, heh heh). I would not see that death as an accident, though, which is what I believe Dr. G was referring to in her statistic. The fact that the couple tried to hide the death indicates to me that they realized, at least after the fact, that they should have tried to get the child medical help. To me that would rise to at least the level of child abuse unless it happened very quickly and there were almost no symptoms until the child suddenly died. Even then, they didn't call 911 - at some point it must have become apparent to them that the child was in distress. I would have to know more details, though.

I googled "child found in crawlspace ohio", but only came up with severe abuse cases where parents kept there children in crawlspaces for days alive. ICK!!

I went back to the original article and found out the article was mainly written because they found the body of a toddler with no signs of trama, with the bodies found on the South Shore of Long Island. The body didn't appear to be along with the crime with the women's bodies, it was out of place. So, here's another quote from the same article....

“It is not simply that it is a toddler’s death,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is that it’s a toddler’s unreported death. Whether it is accidental, intentional or something in between, when the death of somebody that young goes unreported to the authorities, the lack of reporting suggests that this is intimately linked to events involving the custodial parent. Sometimes it’s abuse. Sometimes it’s neglect. Sometimes it’s an accident.”

One clue suggesting that the toddler’s parent or guardian was involved is the blanket. Cheryl Meyer, a psychology professor at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, and a co-author of “When Mothers Kill: Interviews From Prison,” said wrapping the toddler in a blanket suggested an emotional connection between the child and the person disposing of the body. The gesture itself was something a mother might do.

Last year, only five children who had been reported missing in the state were later found dead, and all but one of them were teenagers. Marc Bookal, 4, was the exception. His body was found a few blocks from his apartment in Newburgh, N.Y., in early 2010. His mother’s boyfriend, who had been watching him and who said he had vanished from their apartment, was charged with second-degree murder.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/n...rded-on-a-beach-one-that-doesnt-fit.html?_r=1


I'm guessing, with a little research, there would be cases of accidents happening and the parents not reporting it. Just a guess though.

 

[Sustained]

BBM

Why couldn't they accept testimony from an opposing expert who they understand? I'm sure they have every right to accept whoever's testimony they want to.

Sorry, doesn't work for me ethically ... how could they accept Dr. Furton's refutation of Dr.Vass if they didn't understand what Furton was refuting ?

 

[Ssejors]

I agree that the presentation was over a lot of people's heads, but then that's why I'd have had to review the evidence if I'd been charged with deciding guilt or innocence. But yes, there should have been a way to make all that technical stuff make some kind of sense to the jury, or at least pique their curiosity enough to review it. Maybe JA had been dealing with scientific issues too long to remember what the average Joe needs to hear...

ok no

i disagree

Very respectfully


I am the average joe.. I have LESS than a high school education as i never graduated and I HAD NO ISSUE following Dr. Vass or any of the experts.

There was chloroform in that trunk

There WAS a dead body in that trunk.

There might be some confusing Tidbits here and there, but these folks were there for 6 weeks following along,I watched everyday.. We were obviously watching a different trial, the jurors and I. Cause there is no one else other that FCA who dumped that child in the swamp.

 

[pcrum12]

This is why i dont understand why she was not at least charged with CHILD ABUSE!

SHE DID NOT REPORT CAYLEE MISSING!

CINDY DID!

Never once did FCA report Caylee missing, and at the very stinking LEAST she should have been found guilty of child abuse.

But the jury disregarded THAT because they were told that CAYLEE DROWN and GA disposed of the body for FCA.

So FCA isnt responsible for reporting an accident? a missing child? the improper disposal of a dead body????????

Just because these 12 JURORS!!!! did not have a VIDEO, a smoking GUN, a finger print, DNA evidence to prove WHO killed this child...THEY FOUND HER NOT GUILTY?


I think its totally criminal that she wasnt charged with CHILD ABUSE at least. She may not have ABUSED her child DAILY or more than once, But its sure as CHIT child abuse to NOT REPORT HER MISSING... OR NOT TELL ANYONE SHE DIED!!!!!!!!!!


Why WHy why whywhywhwywhy!

Im still so totally LIVID!

I am disgusted and can not FATHOM how 12 people sat down and in 11 hours INCLUDING TWO MEAL BREAKS!!!!!!!! Managed to Decide that FCA was NOT GUILTY. They didn't even bother to THINK ABOUT IT!... When I had heard that they had reached a verdict so early, i was distraught but my only thought was, GUILTY! Unanimous GUILTY! They obviously see the TRUTH.

But instead, They ate dinner, they slept on it, they ate breakfast, they reconvened then had lunch! THEN GAVE US THE VERDICT!


They should have written a flipping disclaimer to be read before the verdict...


"Warning : we didn't really bother to think about this, we just wanna get the F out of this court room, and we are too bloody cowardly to find her guilty and we don't know whats really going on here... please excuse our VERDICT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Child abuse was not included in the indictment. Blame the SA for that.

 

[beccalecca1]

Sorry, doesn't work for me ethically ... how could they accept Dr. Furton's refutation of Dr.Vass if they didn't understand what Furton was refuting ?

Perhaps because they understood Furton and didn't understand Vass? I don't believe that's unethical, especially given that Furton's tests were done in a lab, not a research facility. Furton's tests were tried and true, Vass was up and coming.

I don't believe it is unethical one bit to believe one expert over the other, given you don't understand one of them. That is what the jury is instructed to do... right?

 

[Sustained]

“It is not simply that it is a toddler’s death,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is that it’s a toddler’s unreported death. Whether it is accidental, intentional or something in between, when the death of somebody that young goes unreported to the authorities, the lack of reporting suggests that this is intimately linked to events involving the custodial parent. Sometimes it’s abuse. Sometimes it’s neglect. Sometimes it’s an accident.”

Zimring says "Sometimes it's an accident" when a death of somebody that young goes unreported ... I'd like to see the real life examples on which Zimring is basing his statement and what the parent was doing after the child's unreported death.

 

[LinTX]

ok no

i disagree

Very respectfully


I am the average joe.. I have LESS than a high school education as i never graduated and I HAD NO ISSUE following Dr. Vass or any of the experts.

There was chloroform in that trunk

There WAS a dead body in that trunk.

There might be some confusing Tidbits here and there, but these folks were there for 6 weeks following along,I watched everyday.. We were obviously watching a different trial, the jurors and I. Cause there is no one else other that FCA who dumped that child in the swamp.

Actually I agree with you, but then we (and the majority of the public) understood it. I guess in my post I was assuming the jury didn't get it because they found her not guilty, but you're right. They got it, they just didn't want to do anything about it...

Also, to answer your other post, child abuse was one of the lesser included charges. They couldn't even find her guilty of that, much less aggravated child abuse...:banghead:

 

[RR0004]

I just have to ask, but who are the jurors suppose to ask for clarification? They can't stop trial and ask the experts. They can't ask the judge, etc. They can only go off of the information provided to them.

Did they ever ask for testimony to be repeated back? They most certainly could ask the Court for clarification of the jury instructions.

 

[RR0004]

Zimring says "Sometimes it's an accident" when a death of somebody that young goes unreported ... I'd like to see the real life examples on which Zimring is basing his statement and what the parent was doing after the child's unreported death.

I think it's a cover all bases kinda statement...because when someone hides an accident it's most likely, IMO, to cover up abuse.