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

Status
Not open for further replies.

1Chump

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
798
Reaction score
7
The State was so fixated on it's theories that they claimed the pool drowning was ridiculous because who would turn an accident into murder. They NEVER consider that just maybe it was not meant to make it look like a murder but to cover up an accident that would ruin the Anthony families need to completely deny anything that might not make the "parents" look good. Like the evidence that they denied Casey's pg.

could you please expound on the highlighted part....not sure I understand what you are saying.

Jeff Ashton kept asking why would anyone make an accident look like murder. Not why would anyone cover up an "accident." But why would anyone make an "accident look like murder."

IMO, Jeff Ashton was so positive that the only clear conclusion was MURDER, that he NEVER even entertained any other possiblility. By not considering any other possibility, he failed to either present or prepare for any other conclusion.

IMO, Jeff Ashton made it all or nothing. Jeff Ashton made it murder or nothing. There was NEVER enough evidence for murder 1.

IMO, all Jeff Ashton had to do was ask himself "why would anyone cover up an accident" without going the next step to "make it look like a murder" and he may have presented a different case that would have allowed the jury to vote for lessor charges.
 

Sjoseph316

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I do believe it is certainly plausible that Caylee drowned in the family pool. During the trial I was watching some of Caylee's home videos, and the home video that has George feeding Caylee a carrot (or something like that) in the backyard, if you look in the background the pool is there with the ladder attached. Both George and Caylee are wearing clothing that isn't swimming attire, therefore they DIDN'T religiously take that ladder down as they portrayed. Caylee clearly looked at least 2 in this video. This would've been a time they were supposedly taking the precautions to avoid accidents like this.

I do believe it is plausible that both George and Casey would attempt to cover up this accident out of fear from Cindy. We've all seen how ruthless that woman is (Cindy). Maybe George felt responsible for the accident, and Casey equally felt responsible. Keep in mind, George just regained some of Cindy's trust and was welcomed back into the home. Maybe Casey didn't know exactly what happened with Caylee's body, and left all of that up to George (hence the "I don't know where she is" comments).

I do believe it is very possible that George was a sexual abuser. He appeared very arrogant, and almost above the law on the stand when facing JB. He had inappropriate laughter, etc; it all appeared to be a show to me. I don't think George was with Caylee alone ever, like the Anthony's would like us to believe. Caylee had her own bedroom, but slept with Casey every night. I think Casey made up the job lie to get her parents off her back, and made up the nanny lie to make sure George would never be alone with Caylee. The nanny was there to cover the times Cindy wouldn't/couldn't watch Caylee. And, Casey just took Caylee with her wherever she went on the other times. Ricardo stated on the stand that Caylee and Casey stayed at his place about 4 times a week. Casey clearly wasn't drugging Caylee then to 'get rid of the burden'; I doubt all of a sudden she started with Tony.

I don't believe there was "off the charts" amounts of chloroform in that trunk. I also think it's impossible for there to have been chloroform used on Caylee's body, Caylee dumped in the swamp, Casey dumping her car, then the Anthony's picking it up from the towyard and AIRING THE TRUNK OUT for hours, and it still having chloroform relating to this child's death. That trunk was aired out, the whole car was aired out, for at least a couple of hours if not longer. How would there have been chloroform still in the air, given the fact that it's highly volatile? I think, Cindy dumped a bleach/water mixture in that trunk, or another form of cleaner with bleach in it, to get rid of the smell. When she closed that trunk for the final time, it resulted in the choloform being released in the trunk air.

And, one thing I found extremely strange (amongst the many MANY other things in this case) is the Dominic Casey video. I hadn't really paid a lot of attention to it until it was brought up in the trial. I do believe after watching and rewatching that video many times, Dominic was in the dump site of Caylee. The area they entered the swamp matches the crime scene photos of the entry to where her body was. After they go in and take a left, there is a fallen tree that matches the tree that was right near/over Caylee's skull. And, in the background of this video is a really long/large fallen tree that sounds like the one that is described on one of RK's first 911 calls. I'm convinced this is the same area. And, either Caylee's body wasn't there in November, OR it was burried and they practically stepped on/over her body. And, besides the strangeness of both Kronk and Dominic knowing where to go to find her body, I remember reading in one of Kronk's statements that he was in that area in August, November, and then December. Why was he there in November without calling 911?

Too many questions without answers in this case. And too many weird coincidences. I agree with the verdict, I would've done the same thing. I openly stated this on another forum after the prosecution rested, and got flamed many times for it. I never understood the anger against the people who didn't agree, people should truly be mad at the prosecution for not presenting a better case.

Wow..........NO THANK YOU button please forum
 

SarahEcho

New Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
But if there is a period of inactivity, then frantic calls where she couldnt reach her parents, then silence and poof shes gone, how can anyone logically admit thats not pretty consistent with taking a nap and leaving your child unsupervised and finding her dead,panicking, trying, then taking things into your own hands and not reacting like normal people, and she has a long history of this weird behavior. The records are telling the story.

Well, if this forum is anything, it's proof that the same thing can be seen many ways and it's no wonder the jury could see things very differently than what many were told to expect from them.

I do agree with your thoughts on this one though, it does make sense and seems logical in the illogical dynamic that was the Anthony household.

Whether it's true or not, and in what context, the mentions of Cindy angrily telling Casey she was an unfit mother and XYZ was going to happen ring that ol' bell. I can see Casey flipping out that if anything happened to their girl, Casey would be responsible, even for an accident or sniffles, for that matter.

The women were pretty clearly at war with each other, deeply bonded in codependent love that didn't do squat for either one of them but wreck their lives.
 

gladiatorqueen

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
254
Reaction score
2
The last few posts explaining the possible scenarios are fantastic. Keep them coming!
 

SarahEcho

New Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
Jeff Ashton kept asking why would anyone make an accident look like murder. Not why would anyone cover up an "accident." But why would anyone make an "accident look like murder."

IMO, Jeff Ashton was so positive that the only clear conclusion was MURDER, that he NEVER even entertained any other possiblility. By not considering any other possibility, he failed to either present or prepare for any other conclusion.

IMO, Jeff Ashton made it all or nothing. Jeff Ashton made it murder or nothing. There was NEVER enough evidence for murder 1.

IMO, all Jeff Ashton had to do was ask himself "why would anyone cover up an accident" without going the next step to "make it look like a murder" and he may have presented a different case that would have allowed the jury to vote for lessor charges.

That sums up my thoughts pretty well on this.

The two jurors that have spoken, #2 and #3, that actually deliberated, they both seemed to have the same sticking point. Both jurors felt compelled to believe in duct tape and chloroform or game over. Even with manslaughter there, it was attached to aggravated child abuse and the duct tape/chloroform. The prosecution really did drill that into them and that act really didn't seem as though it qualified for manslaughter in their minds. She did it or she did not, nothing in between.

You are either pregnant or you not, you can't be a little bit pregnant.
 

songline

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
20,158
Reaction score
48
Respectfully, I couldn't possibly disagree more.
Where is the evidence that GA tossed Caylee? There's certainly nothing that would point to him more than his daughter.

His suicide note did not strike me as the words of a man who would do what you are accusing him of. Not at all. If anything, he's the only one in that warped family that even came close to standing up for Caylee!

And if anyone does any leaving in that home, GA should leave CA, IMHO.


Who would know best how to con the law?
IMO it is one who was a murder investigator.
He should win an acting award and go into acting he may make more money and will not
have to make money on his dead grandchild. :puke:
He has so many people conned. However, I did not buy his routine at all.
It saddens me that people buy his act.
So be it.
:(
 

feddup

New Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
9
That makes perfect sense UNTIL she sits in jail for 3 years and risks the death penalty rather than admitting to the accident (which she then allows her lawyer to admit in OS!).

Of course. I dont believe anyone would sit in jail for 3 yrs if it was an accident.
The first officers she worked with gave her plenty of chances to come clean. (the ones she led to at Universal Studios to the end of the hall)
And alot of people want to pin this on GA....he is former L.E. He would know an accident would be better to admit to than to lie.
You;d certainly be better off than making up ridiculous 'Nanny" story and the kidnapping. Which 3 yrs later you say was made up.
And, if kC wouldve admitted she drowned at least Caylee couldve had a decent funeral. not being worn around as jewelry. (sorry, that is appalling to me)
I am just not convinced she drowned though.
 

Kelroy

New Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
This is the best analysis I have heard or read on why the Casey Anthony Jury found her not guilty. This answered most, if not all of my questions.

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/casey-jury-brainwash-1694371.story

Just thought I would share.:)

That is an interesting op-ed piece. You know, the more I think about the verdict for manslaughter, the more annoyed I get. I never thought this was a death penalty case and am glad she didn't get it; I was never convinced, though I could see how others were, that the state proved first-degree murder.

But manslaughter? I think the evidence at least pointed in that direction, even if you accept an accident scenario.

From that article:

According to Ms. Ford, “Something happened, at some point she probably needed medical care or at least there could be some attempt…to save the child's life that was never made. That bothered me.” But if it was just an accident, then why would the body wind up in a plastic bag in a swamp? “You're covering up something…it's either an accident or…nobody knows what it is.”

Yeah, at some point the child did need medical care, if she ended up dead. And somebody was trying to cover up something--either an accident, or murder! Either way, how could they find that Casey wasn't in some way legally culpable for her death?

I keep seeing news articles and even posts here that say the verdict would have been guilty if the death penalty had been off the table, if there had been lesser charges. But there were lesser charges, or am I insane? And I thought jurors weren't supposed to consider penalty during the guilt phase, anyway.

I think I may be the only person who started out okay with the verdict only to become angry about it now!

So can someone help me understand why it was okay for the jurors to consider the death penalty during the guilt phase, and to let that also sway them to find her not guilty of manslaughter? Lots of things could have happened. But there was no evidence to support a totally innocent accident or George's involvement, and I thought the jury was only supposed to consider evidence.
 

beccalecca1

New Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
856
Reaction score
0
Have you been reading my mind?!?!?! Bolded above is what I have been stating way before the trial even started. What 20 yr old single mother makes up a fake babysitter to leave WITH the child. IMO she didn't want to leave Caylee with George. And, most will say what ex cop wouldn't have called police for an accidental drowning.... IMO one that may have sexually abused the victim. Again JMOO. Unfortunately, we are definitely the minority on this board as well. So don't be shocked if they come after you lol.

Luckily, I have thick skin so I'm not too worried about people judging my level of IQ, whether I'm drinking the kool-aid, etc.

That is one thing that jumped out at me when I started to get in the evidence in this case. If she were just a party girl looking for an out, why wouldn't she have just left her with her parents. Why wasn't there any signs of this before? The questions could go on and on.
 

Controversialist

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
hhhmmmmm. this is how I see it and I am sticking to it. :)
You are thinking like a normal functional person.
this is not a normal functional family.
KC called her dad "Ex" LE Murder investigator.
He ran the entire show from then on.
The Clean up,
The misguiding LE, and the search teams.
The hidden body - not thrown away till there was no more flesh on the bones.
Then tossed in the garbage :( when there was no more evidence there.
GA makes me sick.
And I think GA makes cindys family sick too from all I have read.

I think CA will be leaving him. Not that she is a prize package :floorlaugh:

Okay Songline, this is an intriguing theory. I understand that, in your view, both GA and CA covered up for ICA. I've always had doubts about their cover-up behavior after Caylee's death.

But why would they be so he**-bent on covering up a mere accident?

And in any case, I hold that ICA, as the legal adult parent of record, had no excuse for not calling 911 to access professional, medical intervention. And the ICA jury had no excuse not to invoke Charge Three on this point. :rocker: :snooty: :boohoo:
 

Controversialist

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
I agree with the verdict simply because it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt who did anything. Prosecution tried, they failed. That's our justice system. If you can't prove it, the defendant walks.

With respect, I'll just keep banging the same drum here. We know that ICA chose not to call 911 to report that Caylee had met serious harm of some kind.

At this point, ICA became guilty of parental neglect, in violation of Charge Three. Charge Three requires reasonable action by a parent to promote the health of their dependent. ICA knowingly failed to access the professional medical intervention that might have saved Caylee's life.

IIRC, Charge Three was a stand-alone item that the jury could consider, independent of the other charges.

Both ICA and her jury dropped the ball on Charge Three. :maddening::maddening::tears::eek:hdear:
 

Controversialist

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
I look at those records,and see Caseys pattern of constantly being on her phone. Now, there is an hour of inactivity, which is rare for her. Why is it so hard to believe she napped, after being up for a long time, and Caylee got into the pool? That hour of inactivity is then followed by calls to George and Cindy, repeatedly, then they are done, and Casey is gone for 31 days. I mean, how can anyone overlook that as nothing? I cant. Ya know, finding your child dead is pretty traumatic, and she was Caseys child. Combined with her family dynamics, her not supposed to be home and not getting ahold of Cindy, I can see how someone can act pretty weird, especially her.

Why more people aren't paying attention to these records is beyond me.


IIRC, the pool theory asks us to assume that mere hours after ICA tragically lost her treasured toddler to the pool, and was naturally traumatized and in shock---she then went merrily to Blockbuster with Tony to rent movies about...children in distress.

And when did CA first learn about the pool accident?

:waitasec::sigh::waitasec:
 

1Chump

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
798
Reaction score
7
Cindy first said she found the pool ladder up on the 17th. When she found out the 16th would be more beneficial to her daughter,she changed her testimony. Through Yuri Melich, LDB proved that Cindy did not call George on the 16th to voice her concern about finding the ladder up. If my memory serves me correctly,there were no calls to George found on the phone records from Cindy's cell phone or the land phone the whole week. No calls from Cindy were found on George's cell phone on the 16th. LDB successfully proved Cindy did not do the computer searches. The exposed lies should have totally destroyed her credibility with the Jury.

You may have missed the part where I talked about the pool ladder "incident" was "known" by July 16, 2008 by three different people, Cindy, co-worker and Yuri Melich. I did not even mention Cindy telling Mark Furhman and the other Fox guy before the end up July. I was not weighing the truth of the specific testimony. Just that Cindy started the pool drowning theory before she "knew" Caylee was missing and/or dead. So to say the defense made it up at trial and did not present any evidence is not accurate.

I have a different interpretation of the comment made during the jail house visit. How about "surprise""surprise" the lady is wrong, Caylee did not drown in the pool.

I was not "interpretating but giving the actual meaning. Oxford dictionary, phrase "surprise, surprise" - said ironically when one believes that something was entirely predictable: we entrust you with Jason's care and, surprise surprise, you make a mess of it


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/surprise


Pictures of Caylee opening the door and going up the pool ladder is not evidence she drowned in the pool. It is only evidence she could open a door and climb a ladder with assistance from an adult. "It is evidence to "support" a circumstantial case of drowing in the pool. It is not the defense telling us in prening or closing arguments that she could open the door and climb the ladder. That is more than the State had for any of their "evidence."

Respectfully,the theory that the A's denied Caylee's death because it would make them look bad is not reasonable.

While I maybe should have put IMO in front of that statement. Not reasonable.. I'm sorry I thought why people denied things was common knowledge. I was only going to include the one that applied, but this entire section applies to this case.

What is denial?

* Being unwilling to face problems on either a conscious or subconscious level.
* Acting as if there are no problems to face.
* A defensive response; protection from pain, hurt or suffering.
* A mask to hide feelings or emotions behind.
* A way to avoid conflict, disagreements or disapproval from others.* A way to avoid facing the negative consequences of reality.
* A way of retaining our sanity when experiencing unbearable pain.
* A way to repress the truth of our loss, a way to continue to function in "normally."
* A pattern of life for individuals who are compulsively driven to "look good."
* A way to avoid the risk of change as a result of problems or loss.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/14731-dealing-with-denial/


The Jurors were unable to see through the Anthony/defense team ruse. CM knew the makeup of this Jury.He knew what to throw their way to make them bite.They bought the dysfunctional story hook,line, and sinker.

IMO

Red was added by me in response.

IMO, the reason why so many cannot understand the jurors verdict or anyone agreeing with them in quite simple. If you believed Casey Anthony was guilty, you saw every piece of evidence thru the prism of guilt. Anything that supported opinions of guilty were weighed heavily while anything that supported not guilty was ingorned or shreded to pieces.

If you started this trial as the Constitution requires, Casey Anthony was presumed innocent, the State did not prove her guilt. You cannot try to look at it from a presumed innocent while believing guilty. You belief in guilt will cloud proving guilt. You have to actually not know enough about the case to form an opinion prior to the start or be able to keep an open mind and not form an opinion until all the evidence is in.
 

seagull65

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1
(Just posting from the front of the thread here in answer to the thread question, I haven't read the thread yet:)

There wasn't any hair, fiber, or DNA from Casey at the crime scene /remains , and there was the partial DNA from someone else on the duct tape w/Caylee's skull (which had marker 17.)

There was a pretty exhaustive search of Casey's clothing/shoes, they were processed by FBI lab, and no trace of the crime scene or decomp or anything was found that should not be on them. Meanwhile, it was obvious to us (so also must have been to the jury) that TL for one was with Casey on the 16th and other important dates and his clothing was not all sent to the FBI lab, and no fibers or forensics mentioned regarding him/his place, or others. I'm referring NOT only to TL here.

The state couldn't say exactly when Caylee died, or where.

We knew that the Winnie blanket and t-shirt were seen in photos at the Glenwood apartment, I think the jury might have been shown the Globe photos with the t-shirt at least, but I can't remember if it was explained to them where the photos were. So we know at least these items didn't have to originate from A home, others had access. No forensics/fibers etc ever done in the Glenwood townhome or Sutton Pl apartment, which was just plain amazing/baffling. Apparently dogs not even taken there. I'm not sure how much the jury knew about these items not having had to originate from the A home, the state was still claiming in closing argument that these items originated from the A home and that supposedly that would mean only Casey could have accessed them, but of course the jury knew that other family members or Tony L and others were at the A home at various times.

Casey had been living with several other people at the Sutton Pl apartment and parking there throughout the time frame, likewise with Caylee at the Glenwood townhome, still visiting there after disappearance date. Anyone could have accessed the car essentially (maybe not to drive it but could access trunk anytime Casey was sleeping for example.) Likewise at the A home, others had access. So any trunk evidence, if someone considered the one hair conclusive for example (and I did think it was the strongest piece of evidence the state had), was still not exclusive to Casey as perp.

There just wasn't any evidence to tie Casey to the crime scene, much less to prove that she was the killer rather than someone else. There wasn't anything to actually disprove the defense's exact drowning scenario (I do find it unlikely, I think Caylee was probably murdered.) But it wasn't necessary to believe the defense's scenario in order to see that the state's case of Casey as the killer was not proved. And some of the jury members have said that, they didn't consider the allegations of abuse proved or even necessary, they weren't sure about the defense's scenario, there wasn't anything to actually disprove it, but evidence to prove the state's charges against Casey Anthony just wasn't there.

The jury had no choice imo, and did the right thing. I was very surprised though to be honest. I thought they might convict on suspicion alone. Call me cynical.

As I've always said I do hope the investigation has been ongoing and that we may see other evidence and charges emerge so Caylee can get justice. It's so awful not to have her killer held to justice. I'm sad the murder and manslaughter charges were brought against Casey now rather than later, if they'd surveilled her and other people longer, continued to gather physical evidence, etc, even at this very late date who knows what additional evidence could have come into play. But what a hard call for the state to have to make whether to go ahead or wait, and of course the public wanted justice right away. MOO
 

seagull65

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1
Plus, the focus of the maggots in the trunk was on the napkins in the trash bag (and in the pizza box if you believe GA), not elsewhere in the trunk. The state alleged it was human adipocere on the napkins, yet didn't investigate the source of the napkins, the Sutton Pl apartment (the roommates there had stated they were the marijuana users, not Casey, regarding the marijuana traces on the same napkins. The trash items clearly were from there, etc.)

The state alleged chloro was used but no evidence of chloro from the A home presented., meanwhile RM had the joke about chloroform on his myspace, no sign Casey ever had any chloroform. (If anything, it looked more like she could have been a victim or potential victim of chloroform herself, no evidence of her being someone who would have it or use it on her child or anyone else.) And, if the state really thought chloro was used, why did they abandon interest in the gatorade bottle/syringe in bag 6 inches from Caylee's skull after they found out the Q107 hair wasn't Casey's etc? (And why would the hair have been assigned that number or ever been processed as evidence if it was just from some random location at the site, LOL.)

And so many other baffling questions remain but I think the bottom line was the fact there was no hair/DNA/fibers from Casey at the scene, no traces from scene on her clothing, no exclusive link to Casey, and meanwhile that partial DNA from someone else imo. What could the jury do.

Let's keep praying for justice in this case. Remember, the truth doesn't go away. :)

P.S. I just wanted to add, you guys are the greatest. I have so enjoyed and appreciated you all here at WS! WS rocks! I have to laugh at the tabloid TV coverage of the case, 3 yrs later and they haven't even caught up to where you/we were way back in 2008 in our discussions, imo
 

1Chump

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
798
Reaction score
7
Who would know best how to con the law?
IMO it is one who was a murder investigator.
He should win an acting award and go into acting he may make more money and will not
have to make money on his dead grandchild. :puke:
He has so many people conned. However, I did not buy his routine at all.
It saddens me that people buy his act.
So be it.
:(

OMG. When George Anthony was asked why he tried to commit suicide that day. He responded "I thought it would be a good day to join Caylee." I thought I was going to lose it. Really. A good day.

I thought if anyone on that jury knows someone who has been depressed enough to even think about suicide, they will NEVER believe a word out of your mouth.
 

seagull65

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1
And I don't think the state had to prove a motive but the motive was also very weak, seemed so far fetched. She was doing everything she wanted to do anyway, Caylee had never stopped her. And it would only have gotten easier for her with time, Caylee was almost 3 and could have gone to public pre-K when she was 4. If Casey didn't want Caylee around she could easily have told her mom "hey Universal laid me off, I have no income any more, Tony's giving me a little work with his events, it's a foot in the door, plus we might become a family, blah blah blah, could you please pay for Caylee's day care until I get on my feet?" or whatever. Or just let Cindy have custody period if she really wanted to be free of Caylee. There was no sign that she did want to be free of Caylee. She could also just have moved in w/Tony with Caylee, or any other boyfriend she might have started dating, and continued to just hang out, working or not, probably. If Tony really didn't want her to move in with Caylee (who knows if that is even true) should could easily have moved on to the next possible Mr. Right. I was never convinced she was that obsessed with Tony romantically. She was 22, she wouldn't have to explain to her mother, her mother couldn't get custody over her living with this or that boyfriend with Caylee. Her mom and dad would have wanted to continue seeing Caylee, things probably would have just continued as normal. imo

But, if as alleged by the state she did suddenly turn murderous and wanted for some reason to kill her child? Why would she have used chloroform and duct tape of all things? (Seem much more like the tools of a sex predator or something.) And if she had, why would she have LEFT the tape on Caylee when disposing of her, or disposed of her in that place right down her own street around the corner, or in that manner?!! Wouldn't she have removed the tape. Staged an accident, or disposed of Caylee in a more remote/unfindable location and frantically reported a disappearance.
 

SarahEcho

New Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
Red was added by me in response.

IMO, the reason why so many cannot understand the jurors verdict or anyone agreeing with them in quite simple. If you believed Casey Anthony was guilty, you saw every piece of evidence thru the prism of guilt. Anything that supported opinions of guilty were weighed heavily while anything that supported not guilty was ingorned or shreded to pieces.

If you started this trial as the Constitution requires, Casey Anthony was presumed innocent, the State did not prove her guilt. You cannot try to look at it from a presumed innocent while believing guilty. You belief in guilt will cloud proving guilt. You have to actually not know enough about the case to form an opinion prior to the start or be able to keep an open mind and not form an opinion until all the evidence is in.

I agree with you.

I wanted to see what the trial would show and I really wasn't overly impressed by the state's case, not enough to vote guilty if I was on a jury. I really tried to keep an open mind about it and viewed it from that angle.

Except, in the back of my head I kept hearing everyone pronouncing her guilty, Nancy Grace shrieking about "tot mom" and all the other talking heads saying it was a slam dunk. You start to wonder if you just want to think she is able to be not guilty and it's just all you.

Guilty, innocent, I don't know. I don't think the state proved the case well enough to take jurors that were not subject to all the coverage, as well as all the nosing in that we do.
 

gladiatorqueen

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
254
Reaction score
2
I agree with you.

I wanted to see what the trial would show and I really wasn't overly impressed by the state's case, not enough to vote guilty if I was on a jury. I really tried to keep an open mind about it and viewed it from that angle.

Except, in the back of my head I kept hearing everyone pronouncing her guilty, Nancy Grace shrieking about "tot mom" and all the other talking heads saying it was a slam dunk. You start to wonder if you just want to think she is able to be not guilty and it's just all you.

Guilty, innocent, I don't know. I don't think the state proved the case well enough to take jurors that were not subject to all the coverage, as well as all the nosing in that we do.

I also felt strongly that the state sensationalized their evidence to provoke emotion because they did not have enough evidence, i.e., the heart sticker, the bizarre image of Caylee's face/skeleton/duct tape, smell of decomp using a never before used analysis and Dr. G (celebrity ME). I think it almost worked too, but the jury members were able to remain calm and consider the lack of evidence and not go with the emotional impact of how it was presented.
 

Controversialist

New Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
I don't think the state had to prove a motive but the motive was also very weak, seemed far fetched. She was doing everything she wanted to do anyway, Caylee had never stopped her. And it would only have gotten easier for her with time, Caylee was almost 3 and could have gone to public pre-K when she was 4. If Casey didn't want Caylee around she could easily have told her mom "hey Universal laid me off, I have no income any more, Tony's giving me a little work with his events, it's a foot in the door, plus we might become a family, blah blah blah, could you please pay for Caylee's day care until I get on my feet?" or whatever. Or just let Cindy have custody period if she really wanted to be free of Caylee. There was no sign that she did want to be free of Caylee. She could also just have moved in w/Tony with Caylee, or any other boyfriend she might have started dating, and continued to just hang out, working or not, probably. If Tony really didn't want her to move in with Caylee (who knows if that is even true) should could easily have moved on to the next possible Mr. Right. I was never convinced she was that obsessed with Tony romantically. She was 22, she wouldn't have to explain to her mother, her mother couldn't get custody over her living with this or that boyfriend with Caylee. Her mom and dad would have wanted to continue seeing Caylee, things probably would have just continued as normal. imo

Your points are well taken, but maybe a plausible motive for ICA was to kill Caylee to spite CA. IIRC, Shirley Plesea said ICA hated CA more than she loved Caylee. ICA even called herself a spiteful b###h.

(--) Why did ICA fight like a pit bull for three years to cover up an accident where she was essentially innocent? Why did ICA resist detectives hammer and tong as they pleaded for the truth that ICA knew at the time?

(--) Why did ICA discover Caylee's pool accident, then refuse to call in the medical experts to make sure Caylee was dead and could not be saved?

(--) If GA interfered with that call, ICA should have reported GA at once to LE, otherwise, ICA obstructed justice with regard to GA. ICA threw GA to the wolves during trial. Why would she not have done so earlier?

:eek:fftobed: :pillowfight: :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top