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

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by mrsu, Jul 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1Chump

    1Chump New Member

    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    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.
     


  2. Sjoseph316

    Sjoseph316 Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Wow..........NO THANK YOU button please forum
     
  3. SarahEcho

    SarahEcho New Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The last few posts explaining the possible scenarios are fantastic. Keep them coming!
     
  5. SarahEcho

    SarahEcho New Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  6. songline

    songline New Member

    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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.
    :(
     
  7. feddup

    feddup New Member

    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Kelroy

    Kelroy New Member

    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:

    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.
     
  9. beccalecca1

    beccalecca1 New Member

    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. Controversialist

    Controversialist New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     
  11. Controversialist

    Controversialist New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     
  12. Controversialist

    Controversialist New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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:
     
  13. 1Chump

    1Chump New Member

    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    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.
     
  14. seagull65

    seagull65 New Member

    Messages:
    2,668
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (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
     
  15. seagull65

    seagull65 New Member

    Messages:
    2,668
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  16. 1Chump

    1Chump New Member

    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. seagull65

    seagull65 New Member

    Messages:
    2,668
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. SarahEcho

    SarahEcho New Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Controversialist

    Controversialist New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice