For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[cluciano63]

Before the trial, I remember a lot of posters saying things like, "She will definitely be convicted! 31 days!" I agree that the "31 days" is very damning evidence, but it always sounded like that was the only evidence the jury would need to convict her, like nothing else mattered. I think some people were too dependent on the "31 days" to send Casey to jail.

I also don't understand posts that complain about how the jury only took 10 hours to reach a verdict. If I remember correctly, there were a few people in the "How long will the jury deliberate?" thread that were so confident that it almost cockiness. I'm reading the posts now, and I see people saying that the jury would take 5-10 minutes to find Casey guilty. Why would it be okay to spend an extremely short amount of time to find someone guilty, and send them to jail for the rest of their lives? Even before the verdict, those posts annoyed me.

And on the other hand, if the jury spent weeks deliberating and came out with the same verdict, many people would still be blaming the jury, saying how could they look at the case so closely and find her not guilty? I don't think there is any length of deliberation that was going to justify a "not guilty" verdict for most people. The jurors speaking out, well, that is their own choice and they are coming off badly from what I read...all I know is I was never confident she would be convicted. Nothing to do with what my own thoughts and feelings are, but I didn't find proof in the trial, JMO.

 

[cityslick]

Before the trial, I remember a lot of posters saying things like, "She will definitely be convicted! 31 days!" I agree that the "31 days" is very damning evidence, but it always sounded like that was the only evidence the jury would need to convict her, like nothing else mattered. I think some people were too dependent on the "31 days" to send Casey to jail.

I also don't understand posts that complain about how the jury only took 10 hours to reach a verdict. If I remember correctly, there were a few people in the "How long will the jury deliberate?" thread that were so confident that it almost cockiness. I'm reading the posts now, and I see people saying that the jury would take 5-10 minutes to find Casey guilty. Why would it be okay to spend an extremely short amount of time to find someone guilty, and send them to jail for the rest of their lives? Even before the verdict, those posts annoyed me.

Because when things don't go the way you wanted it to go, you criticize every aspect that went into that decision. If the verdict was guilty and they deliberated for only 4 hours, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hear a peep about it. Just like if it was guilty and JA and LDB were doing high fives afterwards, you wouldn't hear a peep about that either.

People are angry, they are going to lash out on anything and everything. Most people do that with anything, it's called human nature.

 

[grandmaj]

If you have an opinion about Agreeing with the verdict then voice it. HOWEVER THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, TALK ABOUT OR OTHERWISH BASH OTHER POSTERS! 10-4?

 

[beccalecca1]

Dr G. is the Chief Medical Examiner for Orange and Osceola counties in FL, and has worked in the capacity of a medical examiner since 1988.

It sounds odd to assume any WS member could possibly get a bigger picture for a cause of death than a medical examiner who has been practicing for the last 23 plus years.

Dr G.'s expertise and professional abilities are not a matter of opinion, they are facts. Sure, she's human and can make mistakes. What you are suggesting is that she made a huge mistake, which is very, very unlikely.

I know that as many times as I've read posters who agree with the verdict, and listened or watched the jurors explain their decision, nothing I've read, heard or seen has made me find common ground with the acquittal.

I'm one of the posters here who felt very BADLY after the not guilty verdict but did not get angry with the jurors. I only began to feel outrage when the jurors started speaking up. I have a very open mind, in fact I can be gullable and easily swayed by a persuasive person . . . as long as they rely upon LOGIC and REASON.

So far, I have not read, heard or seen revealed a logical, reasonable argument to help me understand why the jury acquitted this woman.

I'm sorry, but claiming that you see MORE than Dr. Garavaglia in this case as far as evidence is absurd. I apologize if this hurts your feelings. I am sure you are a perfectly fine person, but you are not weaving reason into your arguments, and yes, I'll be the judge of that. Again, no offense to you as a person, I just have a big problem with your claim.

Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding. Dr. G did not say Caylee died from suffocation with duct tape. Dr. G. did not say Caylee died with chloroform overdose. In fact, Dr. did not say how Caylee died, because she couldn't find that out. She did say that the 'manner' was homicide (which doesn't mean murder).

So when I question how the duct tape held the mandible in place if it wasn't attached to the mandible, it is NOT me questioning Dr. G's ability to do her job. It is me questioning that simple fact, how does something assist in adhering objects if it's not sticking to the object??

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding. Dr. G did not say Caylee died from suffocation with duct tape. Dr. G. did not say Caylee died with chloroform overdose. In fact, Dr. did not say how Caylee died, because she couldn't find that out. She did say that the 'manner' was homicide (which doesn't mean murder).

So when I question how the duct tape held the mandible in place if it wasn't attached to the mandible, it is NOT me questioning Dr. G's ability to do her job. It is me questioning that simple fact, how does something assist in adhering objects if it's not sticking to the object??

I agree wholeheartedly but don't have the level of patience you seem to have in spades to calmly keep going over that point. Kudos to you!

 

[beccalecca1]

I think this is the question that the poster is asking, then. If there was no skin left, no glue left on the tape, and the body had been under water (with different currents/flow), how can one make an absolute determination of the placement prior to the discovery? In addition, if the tape was no longer "stuck" to any part of the actual skull/mandible, why would the mandible still be in an anatomical position? Something doesn't add up? If the tape was still sticky I could see the mandible being where it was, but it wasn't sticky anymore.

The PP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are the issues they were getting at.

Thank you! That's exactly what I was asking, you just said it better.

 

[beccalecca1]

Cindy did not clean out the trunk and the FBI person said it could be consistent - could- with cleaning products, but couldn't offer any proof, but even after being aired out it still showed higher air level chloroform samples than it should and he could not explain it.

Snipped


The key word in all of this is every piece of science the SA entered into evidence *could* be consistent with many things, including a dead body. These *could* be's hurt the SA IMO. Nothing was definite. Nothing.

 

[beccalecca1]

I believe that the point is, the trunk liner was 'off gassing' that was also why more was found in the air samples than actual liner. My understanding is, while you can 'air out' the trunk the liner is so contaminated then when the trunk is closed the 'gas' builds up again as does the smell.

It is like anything that is contaminated and is not 'cleaned', in a closed environment once again the smell builds up. I think the point was, if there was cleaning, given the time since the incident ... they were shocked at the amount of off gassing that was still occurring -- indicating a significant contamination.

IIRC the car trunk still smells and if you sample the air you can probably still detect something.

I am confused by the inference that she was chloroformed, or that this was chloroform in it's purest form.

My understanding is that chloroform is highly volatile. If you have chloroform and you spill it, it evaporates quite rapidly (probably pretty close to rubbing alcohol, but that's JMO).

What would be keeping the chloroform in the trunk after being aired out if it was pure chloroform? I can see that if it was cleaning product with chloroform as a ingredient, maybe the other chemicals the the product helped bind the chloroform to something, preventing it from being released so rapidly.

I don't believe the chloroform was bound to decompositional fluid. I just have a really hard time believing that without seeing some major staining in the trunk, or even the underside of the spare tire cover. And, I don't believe anyone could "clean" the trunk and get rid of the staining or fluids.

 

[beccalecca1]

Cindy cleaned? :waitasec: She only testified to Febreeze and dryer sheets.

If that's the result of excessive Febreeze use ... detectable chloroform and off-gassing for months then they need to pull it. :crazy:

Febreeze released a statement when this case came out that there is no chloroform in their product. So, Febreeze just couldn't pull that off.

 

[beccalecca1]

But I don't get why the jurors wouldn't think it was strange.

I think what helped the jury come to their decision at that point was the expert in grief. It is true that people grieve in many different forms. The expert isn't the first to claim that. And, it is true that many different behaviors fall under the umbrella of grief. That's probably what helped the jury come to the conclusion that she suffered abnormal grief and it wasn't guilty behavior.

 

[beccalecca1]

I agree wholeheartedly but don't have the level of patience you seem to have in spades to calmly keep going over that point. Kudos to you!

Lol... thanks!

If I'm going to get imposing questions to answer, the other side is too. :crazy:

 

[grandmaj]

If you have an opinion about Agreeing with the verdict then voice it. HOWEVER THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, TALK ABOUT OR OTHERWISH BASH OTHER POSTERS! 10-4?

THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, TALK ABOUT OR OTHERWISH BASH OTHER POSTERS!


Leave words like The posters that ignore this information, what some posters don't get, I'm annoyed with other posters.

Make your point without discussing "your fellow posters" !

 

[logicalgirl]

Snipped


The key word in all of this is every piece of science the SA entered into evidence *could* be consistent with many things, including a dead body. These *could* be's hurt the SA IMO. Nothing was definite. Nothing.

Oh.....I see! Well why not say this in the beginning? NOT having a conversation - well that's makes this easy - I'll be on my way then. :great:

 

[WillChgo]

IMO, the "nitpicking" is an attempt to justify the belief and feelings that Casey was guilty and the Jury was just plain out-right wrong in their decision.

In my back and forth, round and round posts on this whole thing, there are posters who have been asking the same questions and rewording their questions, etc. I don't feel that is an attempt to understand anything, it's an attempt to justify the anger towards the jury.

The posters who argue there hasn't been any science or evidence evaluated in our explanations of her acquittal apparently haven't been reading the posts. I myself have posted some science behind that. I'm guessing it's being ignored because it speaks volumes, but not the volumes some want to hear. There are other pieces of evidence that have been argued about because the inferences the SA expected people to have (I believe because that's what the media was implying too) just don't make sense to me and some others here.

Just my :twocents:

Thanks for responding to my post,

There is a lot of emotion on both sides and need to justify and support their beliefs. Along that comes a lot of repetition of the same points. That is the nature of blogposts.

This was a complicated and confusing circumstantial evidence case. There was no smoking gun. Some of the defense's science and evidence suggests that alternative scenarios could have been possible.

I haven't read carefully each and every post. But of all the arguments that I have read, examined in the context of the totality of the evidence, none have dissuaded me that Casey was guilty of first degree murder, much less that was she was guilty of at least manslaughter.

The types of debates and nitpicking over the evidence we are having here should have happened in the jury room. Given the jury and foreman's interviews there is no evidence that they happened.

 

[beccalecca1]

Thanks for responding to my post,

There is a lot of emotion on both sides and need to justify and support their beliefs. Along that comes a lot of repetition of the same points. That is the nature of blogposts.

This was a complicated and confusing circumstantial evidence case. There was no smoking gun. Some of the defense's science and evidence suggests that alternative scenarios could have been possible.

I haven't read carefully each and every post. But of all the arguments that I have read, examined in the context of the totality of the evidence, none have dissuaded me that Casey was guilty of first degree murder, much less that was she was guilty of at least manslaughter.

The types of debates and nitpicking over the evidence we are having here should have happened in the jury room. Given the jury and foreman's interviews there is no evidence that they happened.

I read a post a while back, I think on this thread, that we were deliberating more then the jury were. I do agree with that, but it could be because the jury was made up of more "not guilty" people then "guilty".

 

[leighg]

I read a post a while back, I think on this thread, that we were deliberating more then the jury were. I do agree with that, but it could be because the jury was made up of more "not guilty" people then "guilty".

I think I read in the foreman's interview he said the first vote was 10-2 in favor of not guilty so the consensus was there early on.

 

[WillChgo]

Snipped


The key word in all of this is every piece of science the SA entered into evidence *could* be consistent with many things, including a dead body. These *could* be's hurt the SA IMO. Nothing was definite. Nothing.

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean definite, which in my mind implies no doubt.

IMO there WAS definite evidence of a decomposing body in Casey's trunk and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that that decomposing body was Caylee's.

 

[WillChgo]

I read a post a while back, I think on this thread, that we were deliberating more then the jury were. I do agree with that, but it could be because the jury was made up of more "not guilty" people then "guilty".

In the Websleuth community, and I may add in the U.S., there are a lot more "guilty" people, hence the anger and frustration.

 

[kelian36]

I think I read in the foreman's interview he said the first vote was 10-2 in favor of not guilty so the consensus was there early on.

And just as important he said the second vote was 6-6 --manslaughter.

 

[cluciano63]

I think the prosecution took the defense and their theories too lightly. Because to the state the things JB was alleging came off as so ludicrous and unbelieveable, they did not bother to refute them in any meaningful way. I don't know if reading the jury is something an experienced prosecutor should be able to do well, but in this case, it appears (JMO) that the state was not reading this jury at all. I.e. if even a few jurors seemed to be listening intently to Jose, the state should have paid more attention and addressed the issues he covered in another way. I don't know, I just felt as though the state did not take the defense seriously at all, and that is always a mistake. America loves the underdog, that is a famous saying, and clearly, they saw that to be JB.