What will be the sentence for ICA?

[pipkins]

Judge Perry will know the right the thing to do. I'm against the DP but have 100% faith in whatever his ruling is.

He is an outstanding judge and he will know a lot more about the case than we do so I bow to his superiority on this one.

 

[~n/t~]

After the fiasco they have seen and the fact that they have spent so much time waiting for ???? (they have no idea) and side bars. Because Lee was paternity tested by or at the request of the FBI...even thoughhe is not the father
they may think all this housekeeping has do with Lee. I think she will get offf with time seved.
Major minority here!
no dna to link her... experts contradicting each other. Father possibly cheated while
mourning. CA has lied (do they know that/ or will they?)
Not sure they have a clue if accident or murder
the body WAS SO CLOSE TO THE HOME LE didn't find it and didn't respond when called the first time. JB clearly poor council
the question asked was what will the jury decide
Me of little faith
I think she should get LWOP. I think she is bonkers! maybe they do too
but if they know about CA they will feel sorry for her.

MOO

With respect, you believe the jury believes the side bars were because Lee was paternity tested? Did I understand your first point?

It was proven there was no DNA because of how degraded her remains were. 6 months in a swamp in guck, under water, environmental conditions and animals/bugs but her skull and mandible stayed in tact. I think that proves the duct tape theory.

George's alleged affair has nothing to do with Caylee's murder and it's all smokes and mirrors.

Personally, the fact that the defense took 13 days to present their case and have NOT proven drowning nor sexual abuse will not go over well with this jury. I believe they know the wasted time was due to this defense team.

Last but not least, they know Cindy Anthony lied. If I was on this jury, I'd be really angry at CA for trying to deceive not only myself but the entire Justice system. Many of the TH's think CA's lying only made it worse for Casey and I agree with them.

 

[jrb0124]

Considering only what this jury has heard and the voir dire Q&A...

I think there is reasonable doubt as to motive. I do think the "Grief Expert" did enough to reassure those jurors who may have had reasonable doubt already re: the 31 days, and her actions/behavior being indicative of the fact that she intentionally killed Caylee in order to sidestep motherhood. I don't think JA's "in that case all behavior is indicative of grief" has the effect of nullifying her testimony the way many here do, I think the jurors will take it the way it should be taken: combining everyone into a single report you CAN see all types of behavior as indicative of grief but not all types specifically in any one person. Keep in mind that SK was admitted as an expert witness by the judge. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of her qualifications, (1) the jury was told she is an expert at analyzing grief/trauma behavior, (2) she came across as credible in that she was unfamiliar with the case (unbiased).

Method, means...

I don't think the State proved that chloroform, specifically as a weapon/tool/device for homicide, was involved. I think the RM myspace page re: chloroform could produce reasonable doubt - and also the experts who contradicted the "shocking levels" and/or conceded non-nefarious origins of it. There is no evidence of making or purchasing chloroform. I think the jury may split on this issue.

I think the pet burial testimony CAN point to ICA, but I also think it may cause some jurors to also see the duct tape as a post-mortem measure. I think there was enough testimony that the tape may have not been in pace around the mouth and nose, or originally attached directly to the body. I think the whole RK issue can give reasonable doubt to the way everything was found at the recovery site. I think the jury splits here as well.

I DO think most if not all of the jury will believe that the body was in the trunk of the car. The decomp testimony was solid and for the most part uncontested.

Though I think the jury will start out with some convinced of 1st degree, some convinced of only manslaughter, and perhaps one or two convinced of neither...I think after 4 days they will compromise. My vote is for "ICA will receive 20 years or less", and she'll serve 12/13 years of it.

Keep in mind these votes are before closing arguments, which can alter a jury's mindset a few ticks one way or the other.

 

[2goldfish]

first degree- I voted both LWOP and DP because I cant guess what the jurors might do, either seems equally likely to me.

I think the jurors will not put GA through the execution of his daughter. but I really cant be sure. if they're thinking like me, after hearing about the illness and death of so many pets, they may wish to exterminate her.

another poster said true mercy for GA and CA would be the DP for ICA as she will torment them the rest of their lives. I think this is true.

 

[ami]

I chose LWOP. I would vote for LWOP I think, though if I were the minority vote and my fellow jurors chose the DP, I can't deny there would be some measure of relief in me that others made the decision I didn't.

For me the reasons would be pity for George and perhaps Lee, who have already lost a loved one and would possibly have their own lives shortened by grief and fear and stress if they lived each day imagining the day ICA was put to death -- and the idea that with an LWOP sentence there would be less theatrics and drama available to her with appeals. I don't know if that's legally true, but it seems like with LWOP she can fade into the background and turn into a pale bloated inmate who ages and eventually dies in her cell outside our consciousness.

The reasons I would be relieved if she was given DP though would be that I believe her terrible crime against a baby and clear lack of remorse warrants the ultimate sanction. It stands for the horror of the crime she committed.

Also, I think ICA will continue to cause problems from inside her cell. She will keep manipulating her family, the guards, cell neighbors, probably her former attorneys, there will likely be accusations against them, the police, whoever's testimony she hated most at trial. She'll play family members off each other. She'll get 'fan mail' and will enjoy manipulating those people too. Sick sick sick.

 

[ami]

I agree.

When Chief Judge Perry was a prosecuting attorney (Jeff Ashton's job), he helped send a woman named Judy Buenoano, aka "The Black Widow", to Death Row. She was found guilty of killing her husband by poisoning him.

And then Perry personally watched as she was executed in the electric chair, back in 1998.

I read a very interesting news article about this on-line, right after the Casey Anthony trial started. Anyone can just Google his name and the words "Black Widow" and find a bunch of articles about it.

Judge Perry isn't afraid of sending a female killer to her rightful death.

I found the video of that interview (with awesome footage of a young, handsome and very hip HHJP doing some cool lawyering).

It's interesting to me that JP said he felt a coldness around the black widow that he's never felt before or since - he attributed it to her pure evil. It's too bad we'll probably never know exactly what he thinks of ICA.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I voted LWOP

After seeing this absurd defense, trying to blame it all on GA and wanting ICA to go free, I'd like to see her suffer every day of her life until she is taken out in a pine box...

After hearing of allllll those animals that died in that home and Ohio home, I'm wondering if ICA is the one responsible for their demise. It appears to me that ICA is a sociopath and would not be a functioning member of society..After that horrendous defense, ICA still will not take any responsbility for her actions and continues to show no remorse for anyone but herself...She's damned and should have accepted that plea...but her arrogant nature she feels she is smarter than the average Joe...she will be lucky to get LWOP, if not the ultimate sanction...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Originally Posted by smart blonde
I agree.

When Chief Judge Perry was a prosecuting attorney (Jeff Ashton's job), he helped send a woman named Judy Buenoano, aka "The Black Widow", to Death Row. She was found guilty of killing her husband by poisoning him.

And then Perry personally watched as she was executed in the electric chair, back in 1998.

I read a very interesting news article about this on-line, right after the Casey Anthony trial started. Anyone can just Google his name and the words "Black Widow" and find a bunch of articles about it.

Judge Perry isn't afraid of sending a female killer to her rightful death.

His Honor said he has never met a more cold hearted person before, in talking of the Black Widow... I wonder if His Honor thinks ICA topped her??? I can't wait to hear what he says to her when she is found guilty and sentenced...I can't wait to hear his dialogue to her...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[~n/t~]

Considering only what this jury has heard and the voir dire Q&A...

I think there is reasonable doubt as to motive. I do think the "Grief Expert" did enough to reassure those jurors who may have had reasonable doubt already re: the 31 days, and her actions/behavior being indicative of the fact that she intentionally killed Caylee in order to sidestep motherhood. I don't think JA's "in that case all behavior is indicative of grief" has the effect of nullifying her testimony the way many here do, I think the jurors will take it the way it should be taken: combining everyone into a single report you CAN see all types of behavior as indicative of grief but not all types specifically in any one person. Keep in mind that SK was admitted as an expert witness by the judge. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of her qualifications, (1) the jury was told she is an expert at analyzing grief/trauma behavior, (2) she came across as credible in that she was unfamiliar with the case (unbiased).

Method, means...

I don't think the State proved that chloroform, specifically as a weapon/tool/device for homicide, was involved. I think the RM myspace page re: chloroform could produce reasonable doubt - and also the experts who contradicted the "shocking levels" and/or conceded non-nefarious origins of it. There is no evidence of making or purchasing chloroform. I think the jury may split on this issue.

I think the pet burial testimony CAN point to ICA, but I also think it may cause some jurors to also see the duct tape as a post-mortem measure. I think there was enough testimony that the tape may have not been in pace around the mouth and nose, or originally attached directly to the body. I think the whole RK issue can give reasonable doubt to the way everything was found at the recovery site. I think the jury splits here as well.

I DO think most if not all of the jury will believe that the body was in the trunk of the car. The decomp testimony was solid and for the most part uncontested.

Though I think the jury will start out with some convinced of 1st degree, some convinced of only manslaughter, and perhaps one or two convinced of neither...I think after 4 days they will compromise. My vote is for "ICA will receive 20 years or less", and she'll serve 12/13 years of it.

Keep in mind these votes are before closing arguments, which can alter a jury's mindset a few ticks one way or the other.

I disagree with your opinion regarding SK. Even though she may be considered a "grief expert", she admitted on the stand (after JA's brilliant cross) that she did not know anything about this case and after JA's hypotheticals, she admitted Casey's psychological behaviors are beyond her expertise. She's not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist. I would have to believe that before anyone can logically diagnose how one grieves would have to know the circumstances of the case. You can't lump everyone in the same category. A murderer versus a parent whose child died accidentally or illness.

We all know Casey was given a competency examination by 3 court appointed experts and it was ruled she is competent. Therefore, she is not mentally ill and furthermore there has been no proof provided by this defense that she was in anyway shape or form sexually abused as a child which may or may not have been a factor in her bizarre "grieving" behavior.

SK's testimony was a flop, imo

 

[USARDOG]

Thank you for adding "Hung jury," to the poll. After watching as much of the trial as I could, the idea of a hung jury completely left my mind. The defense was so ridiculous, the prosecution so professional, I believe the jury will reach a guilty verdict, and I side with the majority.

I do wish anyone who thinks she will walk would voice their opinion as to why, I'd love to hear what you are thinking.

PS. Please feel free to change your vote after closing arguments. It looks like that is possible; and thanks one and all for sharing your opinions and many kind and insightful posts these past 3 years. As Tiny Tim said so sincerely and eloquently... "God bless us every one." :seeya:

 

[natsound]

LWOP. There's no way around KC committing a crime here. I think the death band on the hair found in the car proves a dead Caylee was in her possession, and the computer searches prove premeditation.

I wish the diary entries would have been entered into evidence. KC writing she had no regrets for what she did, but she was just a little scared, would have been great evidence. I've heard there was no proof on when she wrote those entries, though.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I voted Casey would receive 30 years or less only because IMO the justice system is broken. IMO, Casey should receive the ultimate sanction. But that is JMO. I can't feel sorry for anyone that kills another...I don't care what thier past was like, it does not give someone the right to kill another period! But that is JMO :cow:

I really hope the jury looks at the facts and thinks about what if it were their child she killed, what would they recommend her punishment be...

 

[kathyn2]

You know, I used to wonder if Caylee was killed by mistake. Perhaps drugged and od'd by mistake. But just tonite I was thinking about this and that no longer makes sense to me. I now believe whole heartedly that Caylee was killed on purpose.

Think about it. GA saw KC leave around 1 something pm with Caylee. I believe GA. By evening Caylee was no longer seen with KC and she went off with her boyfriend. That means she had to be killed the afternoon of the 16th after GA went to work. KC would have no need to drug Caylee that time of day. The boyfriend wasn't around at that time. The parents were gone to work. There was no reason to accidently od Caylee on anything at that time of day.

So it had to be on purpose. She had to have been thinking about this and did it on purpose while she had the chance and the parents were away. Either she was PO'd at the mom from this so called fight that I haven't heard proof of or she wanted to be free of Caylee so she could be with the boyfriend that night. But there is no way it was an accident that time of day since there was no partying or carousing going on at that time of day. 1st degree murder.

 

[natsound]

So it had to be on purpose. She had to have been thinking about this and did it on purpose while she had the chance and the parents were away. Either she was PO'd at the mom from this so called fight that I haven't heard proof of or she wanted to be free of Caylee so she could be with the boyfriend that night. But there is no way it was an accident that time of day since there was no partying or carousing going on at that time of day. 1st degree murder.

I think the motive was "bella vita", not anger with CA. This murder was planned. I wonder if KC wasn't also considering knocking off her parents, hence the neck-breaking and self-defense searches. Of course, the neck-breaking search could have also been a method she was considering on Caylee.

If KC hadn't been caught and arrested, she might have eventually had another victim.

 

[QuietStorm]

I would like to see her get the DP which will probably be overturned if given. But she could sweat it out for a few years and that would suit me fine. Hopefully after that, LWOP.

 

[Marina2]

There's zero chance of an acquittal so KC won't walk free. In my "expect the worst, hope for the best" mindset I chose 40 years or less. I don't think there's a jury in the world that wouldn't agree on at least an aggravated manslaughter charge along with the false information charges. Those charges have, without any doubt, been proven imo. If so, I think the judge will give her the maximum sentence, 30+4 years. As for the other charges, there's no telling what the jury will do. I think the aggravated child abuse/felony murder is more likely than premeditated murder.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I believe she will receive LWOP, but I would love to be wrong and see her get the DP.

 

[jrb0124]

I disagree with your opinion regarding SK. Even though she may be considered a "grief expert", she admitted on the stand (after JA's brilliant cross) that she did not know anything about this case and after JA's hypotheticals, she admitted Casey's psychological behaviors are beyond her expertise. She's not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist. I would have to believe that before anyone can logically diagnose how one grieves would have to know the circumstances of the case. You can't lump everyone in the same category. A murderer versus a parent whose child died accidentally or illness.

We all know Casey was given a competency examination by 3 court appointed experts and it was ruled she is competent. Therefore, she is not mentally ill and furthermore there has been no proof provided by this defense that she was in anyway shape or form sexually abused as a child which may or may not have been a factor in her bizarre "grieving" behavior.

SK's testimony was a flop, imo

I'm analyzing it in the context of the trial and what the jurors have heard and seen thus far.

Have they heard from mental health experts? no

Have they heard from any other witnesses classified by the court as experts as to her mental state for the jury to compare notes? no

Is her sanity at issue? no, we all know about her competency exams, the jury doesn't - this thread is about our opinions and what the jury will do.

Did sexual abuse have anything to do with the defense hypothetical? no

If there is a juror or jurors who are thinking to themselves "how could she act like that if her child just died in an accident", this witness gave them a way to reconcile it if that juror/those jurors were looking for a way.

JA's cross did not cause the witness to withdraw or correct her affirmation that a grieving (in particular a grieving young person) could behave the way ICA did in the wake of the accidental death of a child. JA probably wishes he had deposed her, and he may have incorrectly assumed that Judge BP would not allow her to testify.

Again, if a juror/jurors were open to considering reasonable doubt as to the State's contention that her behavior indicated intentional homicide - there it is. It stands to reason (especially if you watched during jury selection) that there is at least one juror, probably 3 or 4, out of those 12 who will adopt SK's testimony as their reasoning for ICA's behavior.

If her behavior becomes a focus point of deliberations as to first degree vs a lesser charge, this witnesses testimony could tip the balance.

 

[artbuc]

I'm analyzing it in the context of the trial and what the jurors have heard and seen thus far.

Have they heard from mental health experts? no

Have they heard from any other witnesses classified by the court as experts as to her mental state for the jury to compare notes? no

Is her sanity at issue? no, we all know about her competency exams, the jury doesn't - this thread is about our opinions and what the jury will do.

Did sexual abuse have anything to do with the defense hypothetical? no

If there is a juror or jurors who are thinking to themselves "how could she act like that if her child just died in an accident", this witness gave them a way to reconcile it if that juror/those jurors were looking for a way.

JA's cross did not cause the witness to withdraw or correct her affirmation that a grieving (in particular a grieving young person) could behave the way ICA did in the wake of the accidental death of a child. JA probably wishes he had deposed her, and he may have incorrectly assumed that Judge BP would not allow her to testify.

Again, if a juror/jurors were open to considering reasonable doubt as to the State's contention that her behavior indicated intentional homicide - there it is. It stands to reason (especially if you watched during jury selection) that there is at least one juror, probably 3 or 4, out of those 12 who will adopt SK's testimony as their reasoning for ICA's behavior.

If her behavior becomes a focus point of deliberations as to first degree vs a lesser charge, this witnesses testimony could tip the balance.

I give the jury more credit. SK was a loop job who did not interview ICA or know any facts about this case. She was obviously under the influence and not credible.

 

[~n/t~]

I'm analyzing it in the context of the trial and what the jurors have heard and seen thus far.

Have they heard from mental health experts? no

Have they heard from any other witnesses classified by the court as experts as to her mental state for the jury to compare notes? no

Is her sanity at issue? no, we all know about her competency exams, the jury doesn't - this thread is about our opinions and what the jury will do.

Did sexual abuse have anything to do with the defense hypothetical? no

If there is a juror or jurors who are thinking to themselves "how could she act like that if her child just died in an accident", this witness gave them a way to reconcile it if that juror/those jurors were looking for a way.

JA's cross did not cause the witness to withdraw or correct her affirmation that a grieving (in particular a grieving young person) could behave the way ICA did in the wake of the accidental death of a child. JA probably wishes he had deposed her, and he may have incorrectly assumed that Judge BP would not allow her to testify.

Again, if a juror/jurors were open to considering reasonable doubt as to the State's contention that her behavior indicated intentional homicide - there it is. It stands to reason (especially if you watched during jury selection) that there is at least one juror, probably 3 or 4, out of those 12 who will adopt SK's testimony as their reasoning for ICA's behavior.

If her behavior becomes a focus point of deliberations as to first degree vs a lesser charge, this witnesses testimony could tip the balance.

They haven't heard from mental health experts because from what I understand, Baez is saving them for the penalty phase which brings up the question as to WHY he didn't bring them in during the sentencing phase. Don't you find that strange? Wouldn't a mental health expert be more qualified to diagnose her behaviour versus a "grief" expert who has no psychiatry nor psychology degree nor has she examined Casey nor did she know anything about this case?

I would have to believe that a juror with a lick of common sense would realize that if Casey is on trial for 1st degree murder, she was evaluated and deemed competent to stand trial. There was no insanity plea nor was there any evidence to suggest Caylee drowned. Again, any juror with common sense would ask themselves if this was accidental, why in the world would Casey be sitting in jail for 3 years and not admit it sooner? Why wait until OS to say Caylee accidentally drowned. It makes absolutely no sense.