If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why

[GhostCrab]

I also approached the case with a presumption of innocence, never formed an opinion leading up to the trial and I also watched all testimony and evidence and I believe she is guilty and would have voted so. I tried to continue to believe in her innocence, tried to believe some other theory or person could be responsible for Caylee's death. Couldn't do it. Even now after hearing other opinions I just can't come up with any explanation (in my mind) to explain anyone other than her responsible for Caylee's murder.

I do believe that Caylee died while in the custody of Casey. But based on the state's case I do not believe BARD that it was murder. I don't know WHAT happened. Neither side convinced me of anything. Therefore the only verdict I could agree with is NG. But that DOES NOT mean that I believe her to be innocent. Just not guilty BARD.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

BBM

Respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure I came across statements that Casey wasn't much of a party girl prior to this. Casey didn't drink that often, etc. I believe her behavior did change in that aspect afterwards.

Her behavior changed because she is a chameleon. Tony's lifestyle was college guy. party promoter. Fusion go-er. FCA became the party guy's girlfriend and shot girl manager. When she was with Jesse she prayed with the family and became a Yankee's fan even though she hated the Yankees. To allow herself to completely become part of Tony's lifestyle, Caylee had to go.

 

[GhostCrab]

Her behavior changed because she is a chameleon. Tony's lifestyle was college guy. party promoter. Fusion go-er. FCA became the party guy's girlfriend and shot girl manager. When she was with Jesse she prayed with the family and became a Yankee's fan even though she hated the Yankees. To allow herself to completely become part of Tony's lifestyle, Caylee had to go.

I think that it is important to note that despite the mythology surrounding Tony and his feelings towards Caylee, it was testified to that he adored Caylee and that he never had a problem with her being around.

 

[cluciano63]

I would like to know this too. I was very surprised the SA never brought up her cell pings/cell activity/computer activity for June 16th. JB said in his OS that Caylee died on June 16th and that FCA was there. IIRC correctly though she was constantly on the phone or texting or on the computer...so what? she was texting while she was searching under the beds and in the closets for Caylee? And there are 2 hours of NO activity...when George was already at work though. I wonder why that wasn't shown?

I think they did not bring up her phone activity from the 16th as the numerous calls could point to Casey seeking help after an accident...and the state did not want that idea out there, even if true.

 

[pinkflamingo]

Um, attendance at parties like the one with the American flag and the barfing and peeing in the parking lot = not much of a partier? That's not typical for someone with a baby.

 

[Sustained]

I think they did not bring up her phone activity from the 16th as the numerous calls could point to Casey seeking help after an accident...and the state did not want that idea out there, even if true.

Really ? Then why no calls to 911 ?

 

[watchinginky]

I absolutely, positively, 100% disagree with the verdict. How did this jury get past the 31 days and KC's behavior? If Cindy hadn't called 911, we would have probably never heard of Caylee Anthony. If this isn't at least neglect, then what is?

Circumstantial evidence is used everyday to convict killers. 99.9% of the time, you are not going to have a video of someone murdering another person. I can't imagine what else this jury wanted to see. Personally, I think they should have let the jury see and smell KC's car. They will live with their decision of letting a murderer walk free among us. They said they weren't sure if Cindy or KC was responsible for taking care of Caylee....WHAT?? KC gave birth to her, she wasn't a mother. The responsibilty falls completely on KC. Caylee was HER child. Last time I checked, that makes you responsible for their well-being.

All JMO.

 

[onewick]

1.) What reasonable explanation is there for Not reporting YOUR child (not George's, not Cindy's) missing?
2.) What reasonable explanation is there for saying Zanny kidnapped her?
3.) What reasonable explanation is there for borrowing a neighbor's shovel 2 days after you admit your child drowned?
4.) What reasonable explanation is there for driving around with trash (not garbage) in your truck all the while complaining of a smell?
5.) What reasonable explanation for the smell of Decomp to be in your truck at the same time your child has been kidnapped/drowned????
6.) What reasonable explanation is there to sit in jail for 2 1/2 years, telling police, family, etc, that someone kidnapped the baby and if I speak my family is in danger??? All the while your child drowned?
7.) What reasonable explanation is there to look up "How to make chloroform", 1 or 84 times???
8.) What reasonable explanation is there to have duct tape ANYWHERE on the skull/face of a child? Let alone a child that drowned?
9.) When is lieing about supporting your child, stealing, etc the equivalent to being a GOOD MOTHER????

9.) IN WHAT WORLD IS IT REASONABLE TO NOT HOLD THE SOLE PARENT OF A TODDLER ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE WELFARE OF THIER CHILD? AT WHAT POINT DOES A PARENT HAVE TO BE A PARENT???

 

[Kyle323]

I was one of those who followed the case from day 1. I still want to know what happened to Caylee. At this point..........I don't know. Prosecution failed. JMO.

Is it really that important "what happened to Caylee"?? She is dead. It wasn't suicide. There is NO proof whatsoever that it was an accident. Who saw her last? Who had a decomposing body in the trunk of their car? Who lied, mislead, etc. in order to avoid detection? Who carried on as if they were happy that their OWN DAUGHTER was gone?

This is really quite obvious - all it requires is a medium level knowledge of connect the dots.

The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - not beyond all doubt, and not beyond any imaginary scenario that one can conjure up.

 

[tsitra01]

I will never understand how a mother who never reported her little girl missing and then lied to LE and everyone one else who asked about Caylee until her mother found her could be considered Not Guilty. The smell of the car, the items found with the body.

The Defense then follows Casey's footsteps with their shocking lies during OS with not one bit of evidence to substantiate the story.

Caylee was in the care of her mother unfortunately and the mother even said she received a phone call from Caylee, also a lie. Caylee was in the swamp at the time and her little bones were spread by animals. Not Guilty? Of course not.......she is as Guilty as you can get and probably laughing her *advertiser censored*s off.
IMO

 

[grandmaj]

I want to start by saying that this thread is for those that agree with the verdict.

Second it has become really annoying reading over and over that if you agree with the verdict then you must not understand reasonable doubt, circumstantial evidence and the like. I am an attorney myself. I fully understand the standard of reasonable doubt, the weight of CE and of an OS. And I submit that in light of this unanimous verdict by her peers, that it is YOU, those who disagree with the verdict that do not understand these concepts and standards.

As for GA testimony, I do not recall that it was ever impeached by the defense. But that is never the end of the story. A jury is never required to believe the testimony of any witness, whether it is impeached or not. And apparently this jury did not like GA, so they chose to give little or no weight to his testimony that Casey was the last to see Caylee. Not to say that he was lying about this, just that the jurors did not find him trustworthy in general. A criminal case is far more complicated then many of you are making it out to be.

From the opening post.

If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why

 

[beccalecca1]

Um, attendance at parties like the one with the American flag and the barfing and peeing in the parking lot = not much of a partier? That's not typical for someone with a baby.

Actually, I disagree that it's not typical for a early 20-something single mother to be out partying. I see it all the time, single mom's go out looking for potential fathers for their children. I'm not saying that it's morally correct, but it is typical.

But, I still don't feel that those few pictures represent how Casey behaved before Caylee's death. If you were to take those pictures into context, then you must include all the pictures with Casey and Caylee. And, I believe the latter outweighs the other.

 

[PaulaF513]

I do believe that Caylee died while in the custody of Casey. But based on the state's case I do not believe BARD that it was murder. I don't know WHAT happened. Neither side convinced me of anything. Therefore the only verdict I could agree with is NG. But that DOES NOT mean that I believe her to be innocent. Just not guilty BARD.

.

We can agree that Caylee is dead.
We can agree that she was in KC's custody when she ceased living.

I assume we can agree that Caylee did not duct tape herself, hop into 3 bags and roll into a swamp

I do think that the SAs placed far too much emphasis on forensics that were extremely difficult to prove BARD.

However, logic and reason tell us what happened, they just don't tell us how. Just as the last person to have custody of Caylee never told anyone.

 

[dvdman]

Wait a minute she didn't have a job.

Anyway okay so why didn't she just call the police and save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and her family the sorrow? That's where the problem begins with the "accident" theory. Her behavior was that of a guilty person and there is nothing anyone can say that will change that. In addition no "good mother" dumps her daughter's body like garbage in the swamp and then goes on with life like NOTHING happened.

I think the hours before someone is dead is pretty much the key to figuring the truth out. She was up all night on the phone. She had to get ready for work and wait for George to leave, so she could go back home, then there is an hour of inactivity, which was RARE for her, then calls to the parents and then gone. So logic said something happened to Caylee during the hour of inactivity and when she tried to get help and couldn't she just handled it badly. But what I think does not matter. Something happened to her that day and the State could have proven George was elsewhere, but they didn't and I find that shoddy.

jmo

 

[SideKick]

I totally disagree with the verdict and am BLOWN away!

Every time I think of it I go blank. My mind gets scattered and I can't fathom how is a free woman. Today, in our age, 2011!?? How can this be?

Based on circumstantial evidence alone pins KC as guilty.... in my eyes.

The prosecution/the defense, they all did a fairly good job despite working with myths, aside from the scientific evidence. No one really knows what happened to dear Caylee and because of that, KC gets off. I don't know, it feels to me the system is not clear enough for jurors to understand exactly 'how to weigh' evidence. It's a tough call putting someone to death without concrete / tangible evidence but... that is not how it works in trial. When I read about other cases and the person is found guilty based on circumstantial, I get very sad for Caylee in that KC was not convicted.

On the otherhand, KC has to live with this in her little mind forever, that alone IF SHE IS OF SOUND MIND, (haha!) could haunt her. This girl really confuses me, I don't know what the fascination is about her... I think the middle class girl/middle class hood, a regular type of life and then this tragedy. She was spoiled rotten brat!

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

I think that it is important to note that despite the mythology surrounding Tony and his feelings towards Caylee, it was testified to that he adored Caylee and that he never had a problem with her being around.

Who testified that he adored Caylee and never had a problem with her being around? I don't think Tony had anything against Caylee and I'm sure he thought she was a really cute kid, but he was a 20 something college guy. The relationship wasn't serious enough for him to change his lifestyle to accomodate Caylee. He didn't tell his roomates to clean up their act to make room for his girlfriend and her 2 year old daughter...instead he told FCA that Caylee couldn't sleep over night at his apartment. And I don't fault him for that, it wasn't because he didn't like Caylee, but because he knew it wasn't appropiate. Unlike RM who thought it was okay for Caylee to sleep in the same bed with him and FCA.

 

[beccalecca1]

Wait a minute she didn't have a job.

Anyway okay so why didn't she just call the police and save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and her family the sorrow? That's where the problem begins with the "accident" theory. Her behavior was that of a gulity person and there is nothing anyone can say that will change that. In addition no "good mother" dumps her daughter's body like garbage in the swamp and then goes on with life like NOTHING happened.

This is purely speculation on my part, and isn't meant to be a statement of "proof" or "evidence" or anything I can provide a link to.....

BUT.. could it be possible that she was behaving like a guilty person, the person who her mother kept accusing her of being... a bad mother. Therefore, she didn't want her mother to be right so she tried to cover it up and make it look like a kidnapping, when it really was just an accident that happened while she was suppose to be a responsible parent and watching her child? :waitasec:

 

[WillChgo]

True, the jurors were "befuddled" about a lot of things.

.

No need to rebut an accident scenario as anyone with common sense knows that 911 is called. It is also not the prosecution's job to instruct the jury about circumstantial evidence, although it appears that it might have helped in this case.


True, but none of those questions are relevant to the verdict.


Bravo ! The jury should have put the puzzle together, as there was plenty of incriminating circumstantial evidence. See Scott Petersen ...

I agree that the jury should have put the puzzle together but the fact is that they did not.

It is the prosecution's responsibility to convince the jury of their case.

We live in an adversarial system of justice. I don't agree with the verdict and I am disappointed with the jury's lack of care in examining the evidence. At the same time I think the prosecution was overconfident.

Two differences with the Scott Petersen case:

1. It is easier to believe a husband killed his wife that a young attractive girl killed her daughter.

2. The fact that this case had more evidence than the Scott Petersen case made it harder, not easier to put all the pieces together. There were more sources of potential confusion in the Casey Anthony case.

I am not saying that the prosecution failed to prove their case. Where they failed is to instruct the jury in why Baez's attempt to bring confusion was not the same as reasonable doubt.

 

[Kyle323]

For me, all the evidence found in area A, all the evidence found in the trunk, and the computer forensics was a battle of the forensic experts. I feel both sides performed equally well, or close enough to equally, that reasonable doubt had to be applied.

Like most people, the 31 days of unacceptable behavior looks to be very, very, very bad for KC. If I had not witnessed first hand, bizarre bahavior from several of my relatives following untimely, and very sad deaths in our family, I would have had a very difficult time considering KC's behavior for 31 days could be explained by grief. The grief expert, although having a rather unique way of presenting testimony, made enough valid points that one could come around to believing it is possible that KC's behavior may have been caused by grief. Again for me, this possible explanation added to the equally possible explanations for the forensics by the defense experts, leaves me with reasonable doubt.
So I have to agree with the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

You realize, I hope, that the defense can ALWAYS find some paid "expert" to refute the prosecution's? This doesn't men that the two sides should cancel each other out on the forensics.

A "grief expert"?! This is where common sense must come into play. Do you know of anyone, or have you ever heard of anyone, who parties, carries on, shops, etc. after their child dies - even if that were in an accident? 100% of mothers don't act that way....unless of course they're happy that their child is gone.

 

[dvdman]

I (like many others) still have a problem with the duct tape, the lies and the many others things that point to obvious guilt of at "least" manslaughter.

This is purely speculation on my part, and isn't meant to be a statement of "proof" or "evidence" or anything I can provide a link to.....

BUT.. could it be possible that she was behaving like a guilty person, the person who her mother kept accusing her of being... a bad mother. Therefore, she didn't want her mother to be right so she tried to cover it up and make it look like a kidnapping, when it really was just an accident that happened while she was suppose to be a responsible parent and watching her child? :waitasec: