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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Littleone48

New Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
797
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.

Well let's make that 3/no 4 that think this. My husband who hates hates cases like these and cannot even think about someone sexually abusing anyone. He watched some of the trial with me and today he said the exact same thing that you did above! He is almost 100% certain of this. For him to say this almost blew me away. Just thought I would share.
 

beccalecca1

New Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
856
Reaction score
0
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.)



I cut your quote to thank you for bringing that up. I was going to bring that up in my original post, but completely forgot with all the other inconsistencies with the trial.

Someone previously disputed that this one 'allele' from marker D3 was contamination from the CSI on scene. I think that was confusion with the other known contamination (I can't remember what it was from the crime scene, help me out if anyone remembers). And, being there was only 1 allele found, I believe this is something that was on the duct tape to begin with, and suffered through the storms and heat, breaking most of the DNA down. The important part that stuck with me was that it didn't match Caylee or Casey. I wondered if George had a '17' on the D3 marker, although I know that wouldn't be definitive proof he applied the tape. But, if he didn't it would be proof it wasn't his DNA.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
crucibelle, I think this is where the Prosecution faltered. The jurors are under information overload, and the jury instructions at the end of the case are long, tedious, overwhelming, and unclear. The Prosecution could have done a better job at linking things for the jury. If the Prosecution doesn't connect those dots for them - the space between can be construed as reasonable doubt. It's not their job to connect the dots, it's the Prosecution's job to make that connection for them.

AnaTeresa -- I do agree that the prosecution could have made things a bit clearer, but I completely disagree with your opinion that it is not a jury's job to connect the dots, sorry. They didn't even take ANY time what-so-ever to look over the exhibits, read over testimonies, etc.
 

Leomoon80

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
3,035
Reaction score
450
Website
www.amazon.com
Ref: seagull post 275:
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.

Personally I think it will go down in history as another unsolved murder case or who dun it, the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

Perhaps money will propel people to come out of the woodwork eventually with some of the truth on this case. Another "IF I had done it" book event.

RE:
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

My understanding is that indeed, Tony L. did not want a child there. Remember Susan Smith drowned her 2 little boys for a man who didn't want children around either.
Perhaps the same for the one who shot her little girl (Diane Downs) and tried to kill her, while killing her little son in the car, the kids were "in the way" in all these cases.

As for Cindy?......From what I recall Cindy, tried "tough love" to get Casey to do the "right and mature thing" or grow up, by insisting she could not babysit and had to work etc.
Always trying to "mould Casey" into a mature mother who would be responsible.
Therefore, there were the angry events between the two of them.........with Cindy invoking, "you aren't a good mother" from time to time.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
I cut your quote to thank you for bringing that up. I was going to bring that up in my original post, but completely forgot with all the other inconsistencies with the trial.

Someone previously disputed that this one 'allele' from marker D3 was contamination from the CSI on scene. I think that was confusion with the other known contamination (I can't remember what it was from the crime scene, help me out if anyone remembers). And, being there was only 1 allele found, I believe this is something that was on the duct tape to begin with, and suffered through the storms and heat, breaking most of the DNA down. The important part that stuck with me was that it didn't match Caylee or Casey. I wondered if George had a '17' on the D3 marker, although I know that wouldn't be definitive proof he applied the tape. But, if he didn't it would be proof it wasn't his DNA.

The main contamination was from a FBI lab personnel. I think that contamination was on the front side of the tape. The other contamination (17 allele) was on the sticky side, IIRC. I thought that the lab worker also had allele 17 on the D3 marker, so it was assumed that contamination was from her as well as what was on the front side? Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I'd reeeaally like to know which one of the players might have allele 17 on the D3 marker.
 

songline

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
20,158
Reaction score
48
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.
JUSt part of the props. so he will get some write up.
GA and suicide do not go in the same page. LOL
But GA scripted a suicide for the case, that fits on the same page.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
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.

BBM. That's one of the things I've always wondered about -- why the heck the tape was left on Caylee. I mean, whether one believes Casey or someone else dumped the body, the person that did it had to know that body would be found eventually -- it was basically on the side of a road. So, I don't understand why something that incriminating would not have been removed.
 

Soulmagent

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
3,887
I cut your quote to thank you for bringing that up. I was going to bring that up in my original post, but completely forgot with all the other inconsistencies with the trial.

Someone previously disputed that this one 'allele' from marker D3 was contamination from the CSI on scene. I think that was confusion with the other known contamination (I can't remember what it was from the crime scene, help me out if anyone remembers). And, being there was only 1 allele found, I believe this is something that was on the duct tape to begin with, and suffered through the storms and heat, breaking most of the DNA down. The important part that stuck with me was that it didn't match Caylee or Casey. I wondered if George had a '17' on the D3 marker, although I know that wouldn't be definitive proof he applied the tape. But, if he didn't it would be proof it wasn't his DNA.

It was stated in court GA did not have the 17 on the D3 marker. The 17 on the D3 marker was found on the silver side of the duct tape and the FBI woman did know who did have a 17 on the D3 marker but never said who due to objection from the SA.

So IMO speculated opinion it would have to be someone who had their DNA tested by the FBI which I dont believe RK did. This was very interesting to me.
 

Hot Dogs

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
1
BBM. That's one of the things I've always wondered about -- why the heck the tape was left on Caylee. I mean, whether one believes Casey or someone else dumped the body, the person that did it had to know that body would be found eventually -- it was basically on the side of a road. So, I don't understand why something that incriminating would not have been removed.

One possibility: Duct tape is stereotypically synonymous with kidnappers. In so many movies and real life, the kidnapped person gets duct tape over their mouth to shut them up.

If you want to make it look like a kidnapper was to blame, you might put tape on the mouth. Then you start telling lies about kidnapping.

I don't think it is 100% certain that the tape covered the nose as well as the mouth.
 

Black Water

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
9
What ever happened in this country to common sense? Reasonable doubt does not trump common sense last time I checked.

Actually the prosecution had such good closing arguements they almost had me (and I have from the start thought she would be found not guilty on all charges relating to the death of Caylee-I had wondered why they did not include a charge of illegal disposal of a body. They almost had me. Till I heard that what they feared would get lost was common sense.

Common Sense???

The prosecution was clear that they felt this was first degree murder. That Casey Anthony Planned this murder and as far back as months prior to her death searched on the net for ways to commit this crime. Jeff Ashton argued how very smart Casey is. They also argued that Casey benefits from the death of Casey. Well, if she is indeed so very smart then she knew she would have to answer for her crime. To me the benefit goes out the window. Unless the motive had to do with something other than she wanted to party. Because no super smart person believes they can murder their 2 year old child and nobody will ever make her answer as to what happened to that child. In Casey Anthony's case that goes triple with a mother like Cindy.
Timer 55, I submit is the day that Casey knows the crap will hit the fan. I submt that Casey knew she would be going to jail. Had she ever stolen checks from someone outside the family. Because while her family would let her get away with it and her mother would protect her, going and taking another persons checks and going to target (I am sure super smart CMA knows target has video). Casey knew already she was going to jail. Therefore the idea that killing Caylee would impove her life is ridiculous.
Even the judge seemed to think it was ridiculous saying that an intelligent person would ask if she was going to kill her parents as well. Back to common sense.

Common sense tells me that this magical duck tape did not stay in place for six months. With animals moving the body all around and with no skin left in place so much so that no DNA from Caylee was found on the tape. The fact that there was none on the sticky side indicates to me that either the tape was never on Caylee but used to seal the bag OR that there was no sticky stuff left on the tape and if there was no sticky stuff how exactly was the tape stuck to her face? After all the skin was gone? The answer seems to be that it got stuck in her hair. This causes so many questions for me. Then we have Jeff Ashton and what he says is his reason that he felt this was premeditated murder.

Mr. Ashton says that the photos of the skull with the tape on it clearly tells him this was premeditated murder. That makes me have more common sense questions that I do not have time to get into. Ashton arugued that the skull was never moved. He would have to argue this if that was his reason for thinking this was planned murder. Yet we have Roy Kronk who called in August because he saw a skull. A white round object. He called in three times. Yet when Roy Kronk reports this skull again in December the skull has made its way back into the bag. Because Kronk said he kicked the bag and the skull rolled out. Well, how the heck did the skull get back into the bag? Jeff Ashton says Roy Kronk just likes to spin a good yarn?? Oh, so Roy just likes to lie under oath but we should just let that go? Even if the life a of 25 year old woman is on the line? The prosecution spent lots and lots of time having experts tell us and the jury that the skull was there for a long time, with leaf litter, vines and dirt all proving this. Then Kronk on the stand tells Macy that he TOOK HIS METER READER STICK AND PUT IT IN THE EYE SOCKET AND PICKED UP THE SKULL TO SHOULDER LENGTH.

Common sense tells me reasonable doubt exists about the crime scene and the way anything was found including the duck tape. The magical duck tape.

The state did not prove its case.
 

Black Water

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
9
I felt that this was not a search for the truth. That many of the witnesses that prosecution kept off the stand like Jesse Grund could have shed some light on the truth. That the prosecution wanted to keep family dynamics out of this case as well as family history. But when they did this they took away what was probably the most logical motive for murder. When the prosecution tries so hard and in this case is successful in keeping so many facts from the jury then I wonder why. Then I feel that the truth is being hidden rather than the trial being a search for that truth. I felt very much like this in this case.
 

beccalecca1

New Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
856
Reaction score
0
The main contamination was from a FBI lab personnel. I think that contamination was on the front side of the tape. The other contamination (17 allele) was on the sticky side, IIRC. I thought that the lab worker also had allele 17 on the D3 marker, so it was assumed that contamination was from her as well as what was on the front side? Maybe I'm wrong. If so, I'd reeeaally like to know which one of the players might have allele 17 on the D3 marker.

I didn't catch if the FBI Contamination lady had 17 in the D3 marker in the trial. I think there may be documents of her profile though.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
The last few posts explaining the possible scenarios are fantastic. Keep them coming!

I totally agree! I'd love to hear more scenarios. I am very happy that some of you that have a different opinion that the majority have decided to come out of the woodwork. I know it must be tough to give an opinion that most people disagree with, and I admire you all for coming forth. I hope you all continue to stick around and contribute. I've went back and forth between murder and accident. This case is a huge mystery to me!
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
I didn't catch if the FBI Contamination lady had 17 in the D3 marker in the trial. I think there may be documents of her profile though.

It's a very, very faint memory of mine, so I could definitely be wrong about that. I think it might have been mentioned during the trial, but again, I'm not sure. I do remember thinking that the defense might have been hinting that RK had a 17 allele, but then realized I had to be wrong about that, because I don't think RK has ever had a DNA test done.
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
I felt that this was not a search for the truth. That many of the witnesses that prosecution kept off the stand like Jesse Grund could have shed some light on the truth. That the prosecution wanted to keep family dynamics out of this case as well as family history. But when they did this they took away what was probably the most logical motive for murder. When the prosecution tries so hard and in this case is successful in keeping so many facts from the jury then I wonder why. Then I feel that the truth is being hidden rather than the trial being a search for that truth. I felt very much like this in this case.

I have to admit that this is something that bothered me, too. It really didn't seem like a 'search for the truth'. But then again, I think this is the way most trials go. Prosecution introduces evidence and calls witnesses that support their case, and the same w/ the defense. I don't like thinking that something really important has been deliberately hidden, however, and I sort of felt that way with the two computer forensic reports -- where one said the chloroform site was visited 84 times, and the other report said one. In my mind, both reports should have been submitted into evidence by the prosecution, and left for the jury to decide which one of them was correct. If the defense had not entered the 'one visit' report into evidence, I don't think we'd have heard about it.
 

gngr~snap

Verified Pediatric Nurse Georgia
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
14,365
Reaction score
15,357
JUSt part of the props. so he will get some write up.
GA and suicide do not go in the same page. LOL
But GA scripted a suicide for the case, that fits on the same page.


Caylee was found while the A's were out of town on Dec 11-
EXACTLY 2 weeks before Christmas. Perfect timing to get donors to dig in their pockets a little deeper.

The suicide atempt was 6 wks later almost to the day.The money was drying up. he had no interviews planned but ended up with an additional $20,000 within a week.

GA being questioned-

JB: Were you hospitalized after. And within a week again making media appearances?
Yes, possibly I did.
And you were making them to advocate the innocence of your daughter?
Yes.
And do you remember making $20,000 on 48 Hours?
I have tried to answer your questions to the best of my ability. It had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. we did that for self-preservation. I did everything I could to bring awareness of what my granddaughter meant to me, my wife, and my son.
Was that the focus of the interview?

that comment -self preservation- blew it for the jury
imo
 

crucibelle

Pisces
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
906
Reaction score
2
One possibility: Duct tape is stereotypically synonymous with kidnappers. In so many movies and real life, the kidnapped person gets duct tape over their mouth to shut them up.

If you want to make it look like a kidnapper was to blame, you might put tape on the mouth. Then you start telling lies about kidnapping.

I don't think it is 100% certain that the tape covered the nose as well as the mouth.

Hot Dogs -- Thank you. That is definitely a possibility, and one I have considered, but didn't think before I posted..doh! :banghead: I'm not sure the duct tape covered the nose, either. I've said this before, I really wish I could see those skull & duct tape photos, myself, but I know they'll probably never be released. I wish there was at the very least a high quality drawing of the skull and tape. I've heard the descriptions, but the defense & prosecution seemed to have a different descriptions of how the tape was placed. I'm not good at visualizing things based on descriptions, anyhow, so I'd need to see for myself.
 

Hot Dogs

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
1
Then Kronk on the stand tells Macy that he TOOK HIS METER READER STICK AND PUT IT IN THE EYE SOCKET AND PICKED UP THE SKULL TO SHOULDER LENGTH.


Just for clarification: Kronk did not say this on the stand. He said that he lifted the bag about 4 feet off the ground using his meter reader rod. The bag was covering the skull. Then he set it down near the skull so that it was no longer covering it. Then he put the rod into the eye socket and pivoted the skull upwards (tilting but not lifting) to see that it really was a human skull.

Kronk never seemed to be able to tell the same story twice in his various testimonies and interviews. He told the story yet again differently when he was on the stand including new things that had never been heard before.
 

Black Water

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
156
Reaction score
9
What I would like to know?

1. What was the date that the therapist of Cindy Anthony told her she should kick out Casey and take custody of Caylee.

2. When did Cindy use this to threaten her daughter, what was that date. While there is not proof she did, I feel she did.

3. I would have like to have heard from Reverend Grund the father of Jesse Grund as to why he felt Cindy was so abusive to Casey. Both father and son have indicated that Cindy was a monster to her daughter, just monsterous and that Jesse had seen this for himself. In a search for the truth this could be very important. Did the prosecution feel it would only help the defense and is that why they fought so hard to keep the testimony of Grund out?

4. All this talk about how this verdict is all because the body was found so late. If super smart Casey wanted to make sure Caylee was never found, she was capable of making sure that she was never found. The fact that she kept Caylee with her so long (long enough for evidence in the car which cleary could and was help against her) leads me to think that she did not know what to do. If she had no idea what to do (started to bury her in the yard as Ashton would have us believe ect., if she had no idea how to proceed once Caylee was dead then I have serious doubts that she planned this out for so long. Because lets face it, it was really just dumb luck that Caylee was not found for so long. That area was searched and should have been searched really well.

5. Right after Caylee went missing and dogs hit in the Anthony backyard Jesse Grund did an interview and doing that interview he said that he thought if Caylee died by accident, Casey would and could convince herself that nothing happened to Caylee. That Casey loved her that much and was that messed up that her mind had the abiltiy to do this. Later he changed his tune because he did not like or could not understand the way Casey was acting in court. He said that he felt there were two different people, the one he knew before and the one he see's today. Could this be because it was an accident and Casey is a different person today and the reason she is a different person is that she lost her daughter? That she is removed from reality to some degree because it was an accident and she still has not delt with it? So she remains removed from reality. All this talk about how she is always pleasant and smile in jail. For three years in a 6 by 8 cell facing the death penalty and always pleasant and happy?

There are just to many questions for Casey Anthony to have been convicted.
I feel certian that if a charge of illegal disposal of the body was included she would have been found guilty of that charge.

I hope that Casey Anthony leaves her parents behind forever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top