The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[Baznme]

"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/c...aylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

BBM - Exactly!

 

[KarmaGet'em]

"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/c...aylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

IMO, Ann Finnell probably said the truth when she said "I don't think I know the complete story". However, the complete story part that she does not know is the part about what Casey knows. To say that "I don't think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death]" kind of conflicts with the fact that she herself does not know the complete story. IOW - Casey lied to her as well as everyone else (IMO).

Casey revealed what she knew about Caylees remains and location by her reaction to the discovery of bones at J Blanchard Park vs her reaction to the discovery of bones at Suburban Dr. (IMO)

 

[pcrum12]

______________________________________________________________________

['Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable"

What?


I couldn't disagree more. If you are sleeping or on the computer, not watching your child closely enough - that defendant KNEW, or reasonably SHOULD HAVE KNOWN was likely to cuase death or great bodily injury. Children are not capable of supervising themselves, therefore, she should be held responsible. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. It fits but......the DT threw in good old GA as co-conspirator in the knowledge and improper disposal, therefore the inference was that GA took over and KC was completely innocent. They covered their bases in their "alibi" and the jury bought it.

So in your belief any child that accidentally dies is CULPABLE negligence and therefore is guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter? So any parent that let's their child out of their sight and the child drowns, chokes, runs out in the street and gets hit, etc. is punishable by builty of aggravated manslaughter. I'm not agreeing with that but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[yolorado]

"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/c...aylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

Why NOT!? She was the child's mom. The child was in her care. Why the heck would she not know EXACTLY what happened!? If she were not grossly negligent, why would she make no effort to protect or save the child, and if she did not, wouldn't that EXACTLY constitute child abuse or neglect? Why would she lie to protect herself rather than getting to the bottom of what actually happened if she herself didn't cause it? It seems as if Finnell would like (if indeed she does believe what she says) for some sort of of diminished capacity to be sneaked in under the radar, even though KC was found legally sane to stand trial. Pretty much though, that's what happened. Seemingly, the jury didn't want to hold KC responsible for anything. They didn't seem to think she needed to report her child missing...if she was, or dead from an accident...if she was, or even that she had any obligation to try to save her child by calling 911. Of course Finnell's statement disagrees with Baez's opening statement in which he put forth what KC knows, but oh well... "justice" in America!

 

[askfornina]

Accidents happen, and people who have no culpability or who just fell pray to a moment's distraction call 911. I will never be convinced that this was an accidental drowning, but IF it was and if KC didn't call 911 to try to revive the child and to show proof at the time that it was an accident, how is that not child abuse or neglect? She didn't try to save the child! She didn't do everything in her power to make sure the child couldn't be saved. Then, the baby was thrown away in a swamp, her child for whom she bore responsibility. How on any planet would THAT not constitute child abuse or neglect!?

opening statements are not evidence and should not be considered as evidence.

 

[Chablis]

Of course because we certainly shouldn't be mad about any of the following.

We shouldn't be mad at poor KC who just...well never reported her child missing and/or dead, who threw her child away in a swamp.

KC, who blamed everybody but herself, threw innocent people under the bus FOR WHAT SHE DID and never accepted any responsibility for anything.

The DT who pulled every sleazy trick in the book to get a guilty woman off and set her free in society.

The prosecution didn't overcharge. They found a dead baby in a swamp never reported dead or missing by her mother, wrapped in duct tape, transported in her mother's car and a mother who seemed fine lying about the whole thing, sending police on wild goose chases and having moved on with her life until she was caught. If the jury thought it wasn't 1st degree, they could have gone with 2nd. If they didn't think it was 2nd, they could have gone with lower charges than that. I don't think they read the instructions far enough to understand that. They went with not guilty. KC is FREE today! Travesty of all travesties.

Well, I personally dont think air samples from an aired out car and one search for some obscure drug months prior proves she murdered her child to party, I mean thats what this all comes down to. If a prosecutor wants to hope the duct tape was already on her when she was dosed , its like, how would she have inhaled it if she was taped?

Had they explored the pool death option, this story could have been way different, imo.

 

[MissJames]

I see, so the theory is that although FKC is a habitual liar and lies even when it isn't necessary, and in her own words is a great liar, in these two instances, the drowning and the abuse - these two times she told the truth? What are the chances of that?

Everyone was lying but FKC? FKC who received four guilty sentences for lying? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

(jumping off your post)
And what was the basis for believing GA lied?
Was it because the woman who goes by two competely different names (not a nickname like her dad called,but an ALIAS),who gave a sworn statement to LE that she did not have an affair with GA ,then changed that story whan she got paid by the National Enquirer, now claims she did have an affair with GA? Is that the witness we are to believe to impeach GA ? :banghead:

 

[coco puff]

"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/c...aylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

Thanks for the links.

We really need to ask ourselves "why" would they claim that she does not know?

JB very clearly stated the events of the "accident". Surely she isn't saying that she can remember that part of Caylee's demise but then NOT remember anything else....

 

[yolorado]

opening statements are not evidence and should not be considered as evidence.

Why on earth would KC NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?! Caylee was in her care. Why would NOT calling 911 to try to save the baby not be child abuse or neglect, if indeed some accident happened? If the jury believed there was an accidental drowning, as some who have spoken have inferred, how on earth could they not hold the mother of a child in her custody responsible for not summoning help which could have saved the child's life? Unless of course they bought the whole poor, damaged, wounded, not really mentally right KC, shouldn't have to act like a responsible adult because of mean ole penis wielding George thingie.... which was pretty much the OS, which seems to me was pretty much in the mind of some of these jurors... whether it should have been or not. How else would they not even hold KC culpable of abuse or neglect?

 

[suzihawk]

Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

Could you please provide a link indicating that all evidence was in the jury room? Thanks.

 

[natsound]

Don't you know these jury members are totally second guessing themselves now? Especially the two who voted first degree murder, then somehow did a 180 to vote not guilty?

:silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced:

 

[yolorado]

Had they explored the pool death option, this story could have been way different, imo.

Why would they explore a pool death when KC insisted all along that there was no accident and that her child had been kidnapped? IIRC, when presented with an accident option early on, KC steadfastly denied it. They probably hadn't come across many pool deaths where the baby's face was wrapped in duct tape before she was thrown away in a swamp with no record of 911 ever being called.

 

[askfornina]

Why on earth would KC NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?! Caylee was in her care. Why would NOT calling 911 to try to save the baby not be child abuse or neglect, if indeed some accident happened? If the jury believed there was an accidental drowning, as some who have spoken have inferred, how on earth could they not hold the mother of a child in her custody responsible for not summoning help which could have saved the child's life? Unless of course they bought the whole poor, damaged, wounded, not really mentally right KC, shouldn't have to act like a responsible adult because of mean ole penis wielding George thingie....

i can agree that if they were to find her guilty on one of the charges, the abuse charge would be it. but i can definitely see why they found her not guilty on that charge. frankly i am going to decline to argue back and forth about this, because it will make no difference. i was just responding to your previous post and making it clear that they could not consider the opening statement in deliberations, so they couldn't base the neglect charge verdict on the drowning theory. imo.

 

[MissJames]

I forgot audio.Any audio ,like 911 call or interviews that were not video taped or if someone wore a wire ,would have to be played back for the jurors in the courtroom,IIRC.

 

[yolorado]

Don't you know these jury members are totally second guessing themselves now? Especially the two who voted first degree murder, then somehow did a 180 to vote not guilty?

:silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced::silenced:

The human instinct to stick to one's guns once one has made such a momentous decision are strong. It's self-protective. I'd guess they persist in thinking they are right and the rest of us are wrong....and perhaps not even just wrong but over-emotionally and unconstitutionally wrong as well.

 

[askfornina]

Could you please provide a link indicating that all evidence was in the jury room? Thanks.

there is some great information a little further up in the thread about the evidence that was in the jury room. it wasn't all of the evidence.

 

[Sustained]

Well, I personally dont think air samples from an aired out car and one search for some obscure drug months prior proves she murdered her child to party, I mean thats what this all comes down to. If a prosecutor wants to hope the duct tape was already on her when she was dosed , its like, how would she have inhaled it if she was taped?

Had they explored the pool death option, this story could have been way different, imo.

Had FCA told the truth from the beginning, this story could have been way different. If you think that this whole trial came down to the search for an "obscure" drug and air samples and you are ignoring all of the other evidence ... well ... I can't say here what I really want to say.

 

[logicalgirl]

there is some great information a little further up in the thread about the evidence that was in the jury room. it wasn't all of the evidence.

I gotta say I am impressed with the jurors ability to speed read then, and review evidence - more than 350 pieces in five hours - that would be 70 pieces an hour - they need to package that technique and sell it.

 

[LambChop]

And from those jurors who did come forward it sounded more as if there was more of an argument centered around the death penalty more so than a discussion about the actual evidence which was not supposed to be discussed during deliberations. It's as if they skipped the whole deliberation process and went right to the penalty stage. No wonder they were confused. jmo

 

[yolorado]

I've argued to long too. Bottom line for me- a woman culpable in the death of her child, who threw her own baby away in a swamp after covering her mouth in duct tape and lying about what happened is FREE in America today. FREE, free, free. That's what our system got us. Laws need to be changed. Jury service needs to be paid well enough to defray the hardship of serving but needs to be more or less mandatory if we are to continue believing the jury of our peer canard. The excusing of anyone who knows much about anything needs to stop. Selection should be more of a lottery. Changes of venue should not happen more than once in a lifetime. Sequestration should never happen. We either trust civilians as jurors from the community in which they live to go home at night and to not have been or not be unduly influenced by media and other surroundings, or we don't. If we don't, then it's time to start talking about something else. I'm still hoping that a non professional jury system can be salvaged, but if not, let's move on.