4 years later, what do we think of the case / verdict now?
- Thread starter Mrs G Norris
- Start date
Sweetiemom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,790
- Reaction score
- 69
Threeplus1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2012
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 293
I still think a murderer got away with it. I think the jury was swayed by Baez's opening statements which were never proven. I think she killed that baby and covered it up. Exactly what I felt and thought from day 1.
jane the dood
Dance like no one's looking
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,689
- Reaction score
- 2
Kwest
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Trial Days 13-15
Some more thoughts as I rewatch this trial:
1) Watching Day 13 made me want to sob. The State had their forensic computer experts testifying. Knowing now that they missed the “foolproof suffocation” search on the day of Caylee’s murder just makes my heart hurt. Would that have changed anything if the State had found that? Who knows. But it doesn’t make it any easier to watch the blunder in action.
2) Day 14 ended early because FCA was “sick” after seeing the skeletal remains of Caylee. I remember when the trial was happening how annoyed I was with Casey’s fake crying. I thought the jury would see through her act. Now I can’t help but wonder whether this had the effect of testifying without actually having to go up on the stand. Could it really be that the jury chose to interpret her fake crying as a mother wrongly accused and devastated at the sight of her child’s remains? In hindsight, I think that Judge Perry ought to have instructed FCA to remain composed just as he ordered everyone watching in the courtroom.
3) I’ve got about an hour left to go in Day 15. But it’s no wonder that the Defense thought that they should try to plead this case out during trial. Dr. G’s testimony is every bit as damning as I remember it. Any person capable of critical thinking would have been swayed by her testimony about how and why she ruled the case as a homicide…. Especially after she held her own so well against Mason. If anything, she was even more effective during the cross-examination. When she talks about the fact that a) all cases of accidental deaths (including drowning) are accompanied by the caretaker reporting the child’s death; b) accidental deaths don’t result in the child being dumped in a bag in the woods to rot; and c) there is no reason for a child to ever have duct tape wrapped around their head; I wanted to cheer. She was Caylee’s biggest champion that day. Mason was so clearly out of his depth, in my mind his cross made things worse for FCA. If I were to isolate Day 15 alone, it boggles my mind that the jury would acquit her. I remember one of the jurors saying that the State couldn’t paint a picture for her but Baez did. I suspect she must have been sleeping through Dr. G’s testimony because that was about as logical and vivid as it gets.
Some more thoughts as I rewatch this trial:
1) Watching Day 13 made me want to sob. The State had their forensic computer experts testifying. Knowing now that they missed the “foolproof suffocation” search on the day of Caylee’s murder just makes my heart hurt. Would that have changed anything if the State had found that? Who knows. But it doesn’t make it any easier to watch the blunder in action.
2) Day 14 ended early because FCA was “sick” after seeing the skeletal remains of Caylee. I remember when the trial was happening how annoyed I was with Casey’s fake crying. I thought the jury would see through her act. Now I can’t help but wonder whether this had the effect of testifying without actually having to go up on the stand. Could it really be that the jury chose to interpret her fake crying as a mother wrongly accused and devastated at the sight of her child’s remains? In hindsight, I think that Judge Perry ought to have instructed FCA to remain composed just as he ordered everyone watching in the courtroom.
3) I’ve got about an hour left to go in Day 15. But it’s no wonder that the Defense thought that they should try to plead this case out during trial. Dr. G’s testimony is every bit as damning as I remember it. Any person capable of critical thinking would have been swayed by her testimony about how and why she ruled the case as a homicide…. Especially after she held her own so well against Mason. If anything, she was even more effective during the cross-examination. When she talks about the fact that a) all cases of accidental deaths (including drowning) are accompanied by the caretaker reporting the child’s death; b) accidental deaths don’t result in the child being dumped in a bag in the woods to rot; and c) there is no reason for a child to ever have duct tape wrapped around their head; I wanted to cheer. She was Caylee’s biggest champion that day. Mason was so clearly out of his depth, in my mind his cross made things worse for FCA. If I were to isolate Day 15 alone, it boggles my mind that the jury would acquit her. I remember one of the jurors saying that the State couldn’t paint a picture for her but Baez did. I suspect she must have been sleeping through Dr. G’s testimony because that was about as logical and vivid as it gets.
The judge allowed the defense to sit directly across from the jury under the guise that they didn't want anyone in the gallery to see what was on their laptop screens (if that was really an issue, he should have allowed the same for the prosecution). He allowed it of course, giving the jurors a front row seat to FCA's theatrics throughout the whole trial. :facepalm:
krkrjx
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Messages
- 12,920
- Reaction score
- 42,009
Yes, there was more than enough evidence of her wrongdoing. We could not pinpoint the how or the when, but there was certainly evidence pointing to WHAT she did. She murdered her baby. Medical Examiner labeled it a homicide and I don't think she made a habit of doing that kind of thing lightly.
The jury did not do the right thing, in my opinion, in finding her not guilty on all felony counts. All during trial I was pretty sure they would not come back with guilty of first degree murder but I really did expect second degree. So, when they came back with her get out of jail free card my stomach lurched. I felt sick.
Even though I can accept that first degree murder might not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the entire jury, I will never buy that there was not enough evidence shown to the jury that Caylee died at Casey's hand. One does not go to such lengths to cover their tracks and lie through their teeth at every turn unless one has something to hide. If this baby had been the victim of an accident, or if Casey had had nothing to do with Caylee's demise no matter the cause, why all the lies? Why all the cover up? The stories? Why refuse to help those trying to find Caylee if she was innocent of wrongdoing?
A lot of this case was based on circumstantial evidence, but that is true of most murder cases. Circumstantial evidence is important evidence to be weighed by any jury; I do not believe the jury in this case did that and I will always fault them for letting a killer walk free.
I feel the same way now as I did at the end of the original trial - Jeff Ashton did NOT make his case, and he has done nothing since then to give me any faith in him.
Agree. More than enough to convict.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 131
The 5th anniversary of the verdict is coming up next summer and I am sure there will be plenty of retrospectives. I wouldn't be surprised if we see quite a few that say the prosecution didn't have enough evidence or they overcharged her. Or articles saying that she was convicted by the public because she went out partying. I bet we will see much more mixed reactions towards this case when it re-enters the news in July. I think that is normal whenever you have any story where the entire country is strongly leaning one way, eventually, you have a % who become vocal supporters of the other side.
Complextlt
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with many of the posters here, I can't believe CA flat out got away with murdering her only daughter, her flesh and blood. One comfort is that she lives with the guilt every. single. day. Unless she is a true psychopath, that is, and it will eat away at her ever so slowly until she either kills herself, confesses, or dies from the guilt.
ktgirl
Verified College Instructor
- Joined
- May 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 296
I still feel like this:
Casey Anthony better be thankful everyday that she was born white and to a middle class family and was reasonably "attractive" & thin. I guarantee had Casey been a minority, "ugly," overweight, or a poor person (or a combination of any of those things), she would be sitting in prison for life without parole or on death row.
I still think she's guilty. I still think the jurors had seen too much CSI and expected more non-circumstantial evidence than most cases have. I still think they were idiots.
Casey Anthony better be thankful everyday that she was born white and to a middle class family and was reasonably "attractive" & thin. I guarantee had Casey been a minority, "ugly," overweight, or a poor person (or a combination of any of those things), she would be sitting in prison for life without parole or on death row.
I still think she's guilty. I still think the jurors had seen too much CSI and expected more non-circumstantial evidence than most cases have. I still think they were idiots.
The defense presented reasonable doubt. That is all it takes.
I watched the trial each day in entirely.
Something that occurred to me as Cindy referenced trimming Caylees hair. Cindy also made comments either in interview or testimony about buying Caylees clothing. The matter of fact way she spoke of Caylee, led me to feel Cindy controlled the situation.
Casey more likely than not, resented her mother taking over Caylee.
Casey left the house on a routine basis to appear she was working. Caseys deceitful days were numbered. Soon Caylee would be able to articulate details of their day.
Caylee would soon reach that point.
She was convicted in the eyes of public opinion. That has taken away the very freedom Casey so desperately wanted.
RIP Caylee.
I watched the trial each day in entirely.
Something that occurred to me as Cindy referenced trimming Caylees hair. Cindy also made comments either in interview or testimony about buying Caylees clothing. The matter of fact way she spoke of Caylee, led me to feel Cindy controlled the situation.
Casey more likely than not, resented her mother taking over Caylee.
Casey left the house on a routine basis to appear she was working. Caseys deceitful days were numbered. Soon Caylee would be able to articulate details of their day.
Caylee would soon reach that point.
She was convicted in the eyes of public opinion. That has taken away the very freedom Casey so desperately wanted.
RIP Caylee.
lawstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 973
- Reaction score
- 4
The jury had to indicate more than guilty - they had to pick what she was guilty of. Everyone says the prosecution presented enough to show she was guilty, but of what? A lot of people say "at least" the lowest charge, but that's kind of the issue. It wasn't clear what happened - she wasn't innocent, but that wasn't the standard. The blame doesn't all go to the prosecution - the circumstances were just unfortunate in many ways when it came to proving what happened (the dynamics of the family being a large part of that, and the fact that Casey had issues to begin with). I would have understood if the jury had convicted, but I also understand why they did not. It's not about CSI proof for me, but just about me being able to articulate confidently a narrative of what happened, and I don't have that here.
heidisams
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction score
- 41
BBM
The defense presented doubt, not reasonable doubt. There's a difference....Just because they presented opposing theories and found someone to refute all the state's experts doesn't mean that's enough to equal reasonable doubt... That's just presenting doubt. It takes more than that, at least it's supposed to.... Especially since opinions can easily be bought in these high profile cases... And some defense attorneys will do horrific things at the expense of innocent people in order to secure their (guilty) client's freedom... Fca just got lucky that the jurors failed to understand all this... They got it wrong. And Judge Perry, who also watched the trial in its entirety, agrees with me and believes they got it wrong, that the evidence was there to convict...
They failed Caylee.
All jmo.
lawstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 973
- Reaction score
- 4
The defense raises reasonable doubt; it doesn't present it. The defense has a much lower standard. I feel like the issue really lies more with the word doubt than the word reasonable. If I have a true doubt, then it is reasonable to me - it may not seem so to others, but otherwise I wouldn't really have a doubt. And if it supposed to be a doubt a reasonable person would have, it is unlikely most people will say "well I am not reasonable" and accurately guess what a reasonable person would think.
But if someone refuses to acquit an obviously guilty person because there was no CSI-style DNA match, I don't know that they actually doubted the guilt. They just refused to convict without scientific proof. Some juries do misunderstand this. The real question is "do you reasonably doubt his guilt" more so than "is there reasonable doubt?" like that is a quantifiable, yes or no concept. The way we discuss it is misleading IMO.
But if someone refuses to acquit an obviously guilty person because there was no CSI-style DNA match, I don't know that they actually doubted the guilt. They just refused to convict without scientific proof. Some juries do misunderstand this. The real question is "do you reasonably doubt his guilt" more so than "is there reasonable doubt?" like that is a quantifiable, yes or no concept. The way we discuss it is misleading IMO.
heidisams
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction score
- 41
BBM
Of murder. Of murdering Caylee. The evidence was clear to a lot of us... When people say guilty of "at least" the lowest charge, I think it goes to the shock value, that if not murder, how on earth did they "AT LEAST" not convict her of manslaughter... It was clear they met the standard for that, as well... the defense all but admitted it at trial.
All jmo.
Mrs G Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,077
- Reaction score
- 6,172
I think that's the problem with this case, if people say Casey should have been found guilty of 'at least' the lowest charge, doesn't that just show that none of the charges were proven?
I know what I think happened, I have a few theories about why, I think I know when, I think I know who was involved. I am not certain because it wasn't proven. That's why it requires a unanimous verdict, because when it's proven everyone can agree.
It's not the prosecutions 'fault' they didn't prove the case, a lot of it is down to OCSO and some mistakes which were made around evidence gathering and interview technique too IMO.
heidisams
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction score
- 41
BBM
I was describing it the opposite actually.... Because I believe count 1 was so clearly proven made it that much more baffling that she wasn't even convicted of manslaughter, the lowest charge... Remember when the verdict was read? Count 1: not guilty, count 2: not guilty, and then count 3 came - I was literally stunned when I heard that 3rd not guilty. Not even manslaughter? It still punches me right in the gut, just to type it, because I believe 100% she was guilty of murder 1, and the state proved it.... It just made her being acquitted of even manslaughter that much harder to wrap my head around... and, more importantly, it meant fca walks... I believe this is why we so often hear the reference of guilty of "at least" the bottom charge, because it was the difference between her seeing some serious prison time or getting completely off.
Hope that explains what I meant a little better Mrs G...
All jmo.
lawstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 973
- Reaction score
- 4
I don't think those are degrees of the same thing, though, legally. The problem is that "manslaughter" is not a "lesser included offense" of murder, at least not in the traditional sense. I mean, obviously someone could not be convicted of both in the same situation (both charges can be brought with either option available, as with Casey), so they are mutually exclusive. But one does not imply the other .... versus this from Wikipedia:
Therefore, if you convicted someone of one of those bigger crimes, you are obviously saying they are guilty of the lower elements. And you could not logically convict on all the lesser elements individually while acquitting someone of the greater crime. But if you convict someone of first degree murder, you are not saying they are by default also guilty of manslaughter and second degree murder. In fact, while battery is an element of murder, it is not a necessary element of (ETA: *involuntary*) manslaughter. The crimes are built with different blocks, legally.