4 years later, what do we think of the case / verdict now?

[Mrs G Norris]

We started discussing this on another thread and took it off topic, so I thought now that Casey is looking like doing an interview it might be interesting to revisit the verdict and the state's case and see where people are at ..

Personally I think that the jury made the right decision based on what was before them now, even though I didn't think that when the verdict came down, I wonder if other people have also had another look at all the evidence and feel that way, or do you still feel the same way you did back in 2011?

 

[Tricia]

Do you hear that sound? The sound of a massive can of worms being opened up about this case? LOL

I took so much flack when I told people I thought the jury would find Casey not guilty. Based on the information the jury was given, based on the fact that Casey's father George, lied on the stand ( about the affair) and based on the fact there was no way to tell how Caylee actually died, the jury had no other choice, in my opinion, but to find Casey not guilty.

If the prosecution can't prove the method in which the death took place how can a jury find someone guilty of murder? No one could say how Caylee died. Was it an accident, was it murder, natural causes, no way to tell.

Let me make one thing very clear here: In My Opinion there is NO DOUBT that Casey killed Caylee. It just can't be proven in a court of law.

I think I just opened up a whole worm factory filled with cans.

 

[Hez]

Do you hear that sound? The sound of a massive can of worms being opened up about this case? LOL

I took so much flack when I told people I thought the jury would find Casey not guilty. Based on the information the jury was given, based on the fact that Casey's father George, lied on the stand ( about the affair) and based on the fact there was no way to tell how Caylee actually died, the jury had no other choice, in my opinion, but to find Casey not guilty.

If the prosecution can't prove the method in which the death took place how can a jury find someone guilty of murder? No one could say how Caylee died. Was it an accident, was it murder, natural causes, no way to tell.

Let me make one thing very clear here: In My Opinion there is NO DOUBT that Casey killed Caylee. It just can't be proven in a court of law.

I think I just opened up a whole worm factory filled with cans.

If the 'foolproof suffication' and 'foolproof suffocation' searches made by Casey (using the Mozilla Firefox browser, which was ONLY ever used by Casey under her profile on the computer) would have been found by the prosecution, I think there was a good chance that a smart jury would have found her guilty. However, that jury was more interested in getting on with their summer plans than in actual justice, so she probably would have walked if that information was available anyway.

 

[wfgodot]

The jury found correctly, based on the evidence at trial.

 

[lonetraveler]

If the 'foolproof suffication' and 'foolproof suffocation' searches made by Casey (using the Mozilla Firefox browser, which was ONLY ever used by Casey under her profile on the computer) would have been found by the prosecution, I think there was a good chance that a smart jury would have found her guilty. However, that jury was more interested in getting on with their summer plans than in actual justice, so she probably would have walked if that information was available anyway.

Glad you underlined the smart jury part of your post, LOL. I was totally shocked with the "not guilty" verdict. There was more than enough evidence IMO to find a guilty verdict. Sadly, the baby girl's grandparents decided to lie like hell and save that miserable waste of skin, their daughter.

 

[katydid23]

She should have been found guilty of SOMETHING. Even if we took Jose's word for it, she still ignored the death of her baby and dumped it in the dirt and went dancing. Manslaughter, or SOMETHING. She should not have walked away scot-free. JMO

 

[Zuri]

She should have been found guilty of SOMETHING. Even if we took Jose's word for it, she still ignored the death of her baby and dumped it in the dirt and went dancing. Manslaughter, or SOMETHING. She should not have walked away scot-free. JMO

Agreed whole heartedly. Abuse of a corpse? Obstruction of justice? Impeding an investigation?
Well, CA is living he!! and has been convicted in the court of public opinion. I would like to think that that would worse than death, knowing you are reviled everywhere.

 

[wfgodot]

Agreed whole heartedly. Abuse of a corpse? Obstruction of justice? Impeding an investigation?
Well, CA is living he!! and has been convicted in the court of public opinion. I would like to think that that would worse than death, knowing you are reviled everywhere.

That's well-said.

 

[Tricia]

Agreed whole heartedly. Abuse of a corpse? Obstruction of justice? Impeding an investigation?
Well, CA is living he!! and has been convicted in the court of public opinion. I would like to think that that would worse than death, knowing you are reviled everywhere.

Absolutely agree. I think that was the shock of the whole case. She flat out walked away a free woman. Not a care in the world. Or so she thought.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I don't think I'll ever have confidence in the legal system again since CA was found not guilty. If any of my family were ever accused or taken to court for anything, no matter how innocent they were nor how outlandish the charges might be ~ I would be scared to death.
The jury? Heck yes ~ if one is ready to swallow obvious lies and never ask any questions about conflicting logic or ask further information, I can see why a jury, eager to be released from sequestration, could rationalize themselves into a convenient verdict. All rules can be used to either prevent an action or to facilitate an action. This jury wasn't interested enough to make the logical decision happen. When our legal system has no room for common sense it is not effective. This jury was not effective. They didn't use their tools with any passion at all.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Defense was unscrupulous and without morals, the prosecution did not present well and even many of the judge's rulings were questionable and perhaps too lenient due to the lead defense's inexperience.
Many/most from this forum have moved along. But if you're reading this post ~ you're like me. I pray I will see some kind of public reprisal to all those who had a hand in all of the injustices done to Caylee before I die. Caylee and her circumstances will remain with me until then.

 

[wfgodot]

I viewed the whole trial free from the taint of Nancy Grace-like "justice" sites hyping the case day after day after day, and thus watched the proceedings entirely dependent on the legal process and the courtroom issues pursued by the People and the defense via questions and answers in sworn testimony. Based on its presentation to judge and jury the prosecution did not deserve to win that case. The State of Florida has itself to blame.

 

[beach]

I've never been one that liked opening cans of worms. Then again, I don't care for worms much anyway. I certainly don't understand the need for it 4 years post-verdict.

For me - I have absolutely zero desire to revisit the nightmare of that jury's verdict. It's over. She walked. She murdered Caylee and she walked free. That jury wasn't even conscientious enough to convict her on the negligence charge though she didn't report her missing for 31 days. That verdict was excruciatingly painful to hear (much less accept) for those of us who spent countless days/nights actually sleuthing tens of thousands of pages of documents and evidence items and know what the evidence proves. Took me years to be able to come to some sort of terms of acceptance - even that of "It is what it is and she will not be tried again for Caylee's murder. For my own peace of mind, I'll have to accept that she will face a higher Judge in the afterlife."

So, for those of you who find this beneficial, enjoy the discussion. For me, it is a horror that I have no desire to relive.

 

[Goose22]

I used to be mostly content with the verdict- I figured that the jury had to have made the right decision based on the facts of the case- but my mind was changed after watching Dr. G's special on her experience testifying in the case and how she felt about it. I'm not sure if anything she said has been proven false but the verdict seemed at the very least fairly avoidable after I heard what she had to say.

 

[wfgodot]

Emotions are one thing but what followed the verdict was unchecked clamor.

 

[Queen Bee]

I've never been one that liked opening cans of worms. Then again, I don't care for worms much anyway. I certainly don't understand the need for it 4 years post-verdict.

For me - I have absolutely zero desire to revisit the nightmare of that jury's verdict. It's over. She walked. She murdered Caylee and she walked free. That jury wasn't even conscientious enough to convict her on the negligence charge though she didn't report her missing for 31 days. That verdict was excruciatingly painful to hear (much less accept) for those of us who spent countless days/nights actually sleuthing tens of thousands of pages of documents and evidence items and know what the evidence proves. Took me years to be able to come to some sort of terms of acceptance - even that of "It is what it is and she will not be tried again for Caylee's murder. For my own peace of mind, I'll have to accept that she will face a higher Judge in the afterlife."

So, for those of you who find this beneficial, enjoy the discussion. For me, it is a horror that I have no desire to relive.

amen :heartbeat:

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I recently watched a lot of the trial over, and in particular closing arguments .. it struck me that the State failed to prove a large part of their case, and the way Baez showed the jury that, and the way Mason took the jury through reasonable doubt led the jury to their inevitable verdict. It didn't seem inevitable to us at the time because we were so immersed in the case and had heard nothing but pro prosecution arguments for so long .. I agree with Tricia, I actually think Casey most likely killed Caylee, but most likely isn't good enough for a conviction, and nor should it be.

I think if the jury had seen the 'foolproof suffication' search the outcome may have been different, it's a concern to me that OCSO missed that when they went through the computer searches, yet Baez's computer expert picked it up .. don't we want the State to be better detectives with all the resources available to them than the defense?

On chloroform .. prosecutors alleged that Casey used chloroform to render Caylee unconscious before placing duct tape over her nose and mouth to suffocate her. Yet, they never showed how Casey obtained it. Did she make it? If so where and how? Did she buy it? If so who from?

Another thing that has always bothered me, the state was firm in that the duct tape was placed over the nose and mouth holding the mandible in place, yet we were never shown any in-situ photographs which would have given us a chance to judge for ourselves, so personally I have no idea whether I agree with their assessment or not.

I believe the jury did the right thing based on what was before them, and what was not. I think the media hype surrounding the case not only had an impact on jury selection, but also impacted public expectation of a guilty verdict.

 

[RANCH]

I've seen "no body" cases where the prosecution had zero evidence of how the victim died but still obtained a conviction.

There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict Casey. Did the prosecution make some mistakes? Yes, they did. But it wasn't from having a lack of evidence showing that Casey was guilty.

JMO.

 

[Tulessa]

Do you hear that sound? The sound of a massive can of worms being opened up about this case? LOL

I took so much flack when I told people I thought the jury would find Casey not guilty. Based on the information the jury was given, based on the fact that Casey's father George, lied on the stand ( about the affair) and based on the fact there was no way to tell how Caylee actually died, the jury had no other choice, in my opinion, but to find Casey not guilty.

If the prosecution can't prove the method in which the death took place how can a jury find someone guilty of murder? No one could say how Caylee died. Was it an accident, was it murder, natural causes, no way to tell.

Let me make one thing very clear here: In My Opinion there is NO DOUBT that Casey killed Caylee. It just can't be proven in a court of law.

I think I just opened up a whole worm factory filled with cans.

I hated like the dickens to click like on your post Tricia. But I did, because you are right. It still hurts though!

 

[Tulessa]

Glad you underlined the smart jury part of your post, LOL. I was totally shocked with the "not guilty" verdict. There was more than enough evidence IMO to find a guilty verdict. Sadly, the baby girl's grandparents decided to lie like hell and save that miserable waste of skin, their daughter.

Yes, even Judge Perry said they had enough to convict.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Do you hear that sound? The sound of a massive can of worms being opened up about this case? LOL

I took so much flack when I told people I thought the jury would find Casey not guilty. Based on the information the jury was given, based on the fact that Casey's father George, lied on the stand ( about the affair) and based on the fact there was no way to tell how Caylee actually died, the jury had no other choice, in my opinion, but to find Casey not guilty.

If the prosecution can't prove the method in which the death took place how can a jury find someone guilty of murder? No one could say how Caylee died. Was it an accident, was it murder, natural causes, no way to tell.

Let me make one thing very clear here: In My Opinion there is NO DOUBT that Casey killed Caylee. It just can't be proven in a court of law.

I think I just opened up a whole worm factory filled with cans.

You know it's funny, I have a good friend Brian who followed the case with me all the way through. We watched Nancy every night via YouTube thanks to PattyG :heartbeat: (we don't get HLN here) and swapped articles and links from the day the case broke. Brian was telling me all the way through the trial that the jury would find Not Guilty, I thought he was crazy and decided that the fact he didn't go the extra step and join this forum is why he had no idea what he was talking about, and I was quite patronising towards him about the upcoming verdict. When he texted me in the middle of the night that she had been acquitted I thought he was lying to me and it wasn't until I stumbled across to the main house and switched on Fox that I believed him. I really didn't see it coming, it took me a long time to want to revisit the trial, but now that I have I'm glad I did .. cudos to everyone who saw it coming ahead of time.