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. jrb0124

    jrb0124 New Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've seen quite a few false statements being thrown around in other threads as if they are accepted fact, and then used to critize and belittle the jury or its efforts. Here are a few of the whoopers:

    FALSE: Jurors left their notebooks and did not use them in deliberations. :pinocchio:

    TRUE:Since jury instructions failed to specifically cover this, Judge Perry had the notebooks left until it was "sorted out". The 12 deliberating jurors had notebooks given to them once in jury room. JP said he would hold and then destroy notebooks from the 5 alternates once a verdict was reached. :gavel:

    FALSE: Jurors didn't even look at any of the evidence during deliberations. :pinocchio:

    TRUE: The jury received more than 400 pieces of evidence (all but video) in the jury room. :yes:


    FALSE: There were 84 searches for chloroform (cacheback report) :pinocchio:

    TRUE: There were 84 myspace accesses and 1 chloroform search (net analysis report). :deal:


    FALSE: Jurors did not need to consider how Caylee died to find Casey guilty. :pinocchio:

    TRUE: Jurors had to conclude homicide was the manner of death and that Casey was the one who murdered her to find her guilty. :tos:


    FALSE: An expert witness (ME) gave a scientific opinion that manner of death was homicide. :pinocchio:

    TRUE: An expert witness (ME) gave a scientific opinion that manner of death is undeterminable. :waitasec:


    FALSE: The defense never explained the 31 days of partying, lying, and no apparent remorse. :pinocchio:

    TRUE: Whether one personally agrees with her testimony or not, the defense put on a "grief expert" who testified that such behavior could very well trace to grief/trauma. :abnormal:


    ...its bad enough that the jurors are getting bashed for their verdict - arrived upon based on the jury instructions and evidence/testimony, please do not make things up about their deliberations or repeat false statements about the evidence they saw (or didn't).
     
  2. cyberborg

    cyberborg Seeking Justice for Victims

    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that the point is, the trunk liner was 'off gassing' that was also why more was found in the air samples than actual liner. My understanding is, while you can 'air out' the trunk the liner is so contaminated then when the trunk is closed the 'gas' builds up again as does the smell.

    It is like anything that is contaminated and is not 'cleaned', in a closed environment once again the smell builds up. I think the point was, if there was cleaning, given the time since the incident ... they were shocked at the amount of off gassing that was still occurring -- indicating a significant contamination.

    IIRC the car trunk still smells and if you sample the air you can probably still detect something.
     
  3. crimesnooper

    crimesnooper New Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Using the "I hate Casey" theme to suggest people twist information is an emtoional response and not based on logic. Is it possible in your view that there are people who do not hate Casey but actually heard evidence that supports the Sa case. IMP
     
  4. Chablis

    Chablis Inactive

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But the FBI said that there was not outrageous levels. The car was AIRED out, so any sample is not going to be an accurate representation of how the car was when Casey had it. If a car was aired out, wouldn't the chloroform dry up? Its not that dense.
     
  5. cyberborg

    cyberborg Seeking Justice for Victims

    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I find intriguing is that as the trial played out and the closing statements you saw talking heads and advocates for the Defense start to waiver and concede. Many spoke of how powerful the Prosecution case was and many attorney's and Judge's whose opinions I respect felt that this was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even folks like LKB conceded in the final hours and even the DT looked beaten and worried.

    I can concede your point and that there was doubt as to whether this was premeditated, whether it was murder or manslaughter. I can concede that this was not a DP case but there was clear culpability for ICA that she was guilty of a crime that resulted in the death and cover-up of her daughter.

    Where I struggle is with the Jury's whole opinion about GA and his involvement, there was a lot based on opinions and pure speculation where no evidence was presented ... they took some inferences and ran with them ... to the extreme that GA was maybe the murderer WTH?

    So the Jury ran with some wild and outrageous theories playing into the Defense gamemanship, they focused on GA as if he was on trial and, basically gave ICA a free pass even though she was clearly guilty of a lesser charge.
     
  6. cyberborg

    cyberborg Seeking Justice for Victims

    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apples and oranges? The FBI IIRC tested the liner sample and did not expect to find anything at all and was surprised to find something. Because chloroform is volatile it off gasses more than most chemicals so it was surprising so much was discovered in the air sample ... still.

    The contamination was such that once the car was closed off again the off gassing continued and built up. You would think it would have all evaporated away but apparently not, so they were extrapolating that if they can detect it still weeks/months later, how much was originally present?
     
  7. Chablis

    Chablis Inactive

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The FBI said the levels were consistent with cleaning products. Cindy cleaned. Just a fact. The FBI did not say there were alarming levels, that came from a guy who took air samples from an aired out car. They State bypassed the FBI guy, and went with the junk science guy, and we all know how that turned out.

    jmo
     
  8. cluciano63

    cluciano63 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,200
    Likes Received:
    27,175
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree, I have been watching reruns of the testimony they are showing on HLN for the past several days, and so much of the arguing, etc. is done out of the presence of the jury. They were out of the courtroom a great deal of time and never knew so many things that we knew or learned from some of the debates that took place outside of their presence. It must have seemed very disjointed, the way the case was presented at times, and some topics being raised, halted and never gone back to, etc...
     
  9. cyberborg

    cyberborg Seeking Justice for Victims

    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cindy cleaned? :waitasec: She only testified to Febreeze and dryer sheets.

    If that's the result of excessive Febreeze use ... detectable chloroform and off-gassing for months then they need to pull it. :crazy:
     
  10. eleni777

    eleni777 New Member

    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It has been proven that Cindy LIES, even under oath.
     
  11. cyberborg

    cyberborg Seeking Justice for Victims

    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was stated as a fact, not an assumption. :twocents: We can make an assumption that CA cleaned the car trunk but it is not a 'fact' in evidence IIRC.
     
  12. Chablis

    Chablis Inactive

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Is it true that George went to work and left Cindy with the car? All I am saying its in my opinion that she went beserk cleaning, saying she used a whole bottle of Fabreeze basically, I mean thats a lot of Febreze. She cleaned, and the State tried to argue air samples from an aired out car showed someone killed their child. That just blows my mind.

    jmo
     
  13. leighg

    leighg New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact that we here on WS continue to rehash and debate the evidence from both sides- SA & DT -shows that it is logical that there is some doubt -the burden of proof wasn't there for 1st degree murder. I get that.

    I reviewed the language of the laws provided to the jury and I understand that they didn't find her guilty of aggravated child abuse.

    I find it difficult, however, to understand how the culpable negligence of manslaughter wasn't a charge they could agree to. But I have to respect their decision.

    The points I used by only watching the trial were:

    GA's testimony placed Caylee with Casey last. I felt he was posturing and I was not confident with his early testimonies for the SA. I understood why he was beligerent with JB in his later testimonies and the one time I truly believed him was when he was talking about his suicide attempt. And when he said 1+1=2 I was ready to convict Murder 2- but the jury apparently impeached all of his testimony and they then felt that they were unsure who had custody of Caylee when she passed away.

    Chloroform searches- the 84 searches seemed very high and I don't recall the DT or SA asking how many times myspace was searched- then when the dt's witness stated it was 84 searches on myspace it made more sense-when the boyfriend had a ad on myspace 'win her over with chloroform'. I accept that there was a high level of chloroform in the trunk- have no idea why or how it was used and since it couldn't be specifically linked to Caylee I can understand the jury not considering it as a murder weapon.

    I buy the smell of death in the car-(never liked that the junk yard guy and GA didn't immediately report it but believe they smelled it). I believed Dr Vass and the cadaver dogs to point to decomp in the car. But if Caylee was already dead (and there is real doubt as to HOW) then all that proves is that Casey was guilty of improper disposal of a corpse and that wasn't a charge.

    The duct tape- I valued Dr G's testimony but it was expert opinion and not a fact of cause of death. She couldn't say if the tape was used pre-postmortem. And I can see a liar trying to substantiate a tale of kidnapping by using duct tape POST mortem-so to me this still didn't answer the questions of how Caylee died- it a gave a possible scenario but it couldn't be certain it wasn't an accident and then Casey covered it up. The fact that Dr S also alluded to the pictures of the skull being 'staged' could raise doubt- even though he didn't sound as professional as Dr G he was still accepted by both sides as an expert.

    I feel there was definately reasonable doubt in murder 1 and the pure legal language of agg child abuse precluded that as a charge as well. But I truly don't understand how the jury that was crying and hated voting not guilty couldn't piece together the reality that Caylee was probably last with Casey and that Casey had her body in the car. Even if they wanted to believe it was an accident- that would qualify for culpable negligence (agg manslaughter) in my book- but again I wasn't on the jury. I do respect them for the time and effort they gave and hope the public allows them to get on with their lives in peace.
     
  14. AnaTeresa

    AnaTeresa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bravo, jrb0124! :applause:
     
  15. missy8394

    missy8394 Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Here is why I just don't get it.
    If my beloved pet died of natural causes, old age, long term illness, etc., I would be very sad to say the least and I could convince myself that they're in a better place. But I would be heartbroken, I would cry, I would be mopey.

    If my pet died in an accident, I would heartbroken, I would be devastated. I would be depressed, I would have crying jags for days and if someone were to ask about them I would at the very least tear up.

    However if I caused the death of my pet, and that was my intent, then I wouldn't be upset and would go on with my life.

    Now if it were my child...

    So I would think that hours later, picking out movies and partying with friends would speak volumes. That's why I don't get it.
     
  16. eleni777

    eleni777 New Member

    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's why were still here, None of us "get it" but we are normal people trying to understand someone that isn't normal. I don't care what the psychologists say KC, GA, & CA Anthony's are NOT NORMAL..
     
  17. missy8394

    missy8394 Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    But I don't get why the jurors wouldn't think it was strange.
     
  18. Chablis

    Chablis Inactive

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe life experience and family dynamics and personal experiences factored in with this jury? Maybe they too have a crazy cousin Casey?
     
  19. missy8394

    missy8394 Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    But why would any of that be a factor in her accountability? I can see where it would factor into her punishment but no matter what she went through it wouldn't excuse her actions. I've thought it through and can see how the jurors could find explanations for many, many things but this one I just can't find any.
     
  20. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,763
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Before the trial, I remember a lot of posters saying things like, "She will definitely be convicted! 31 days!" I agree that the "31 days" is very damning evidence, but it always sounded like that was the only evidence the jury would need to convict her, like nothing else mattered. I think some people were too dependent on the "31 days" to send Casey to jail.

    I also don't understand posts that complain about how the jury only took 10 hours to reach a verdict. If I remember correctly, there were a few people in the "How long will the jury deliberate?" thread that were so confident that it almost cockiness. I'm reading the posts now, and I see people saying that the jury would take 5-10 minutes to find Casey guilty. Why would it be okay to spend an extremely short amount of time to find someone guilty, and send them to jail for the rest of their lives? Even before the verdict, those posts annoyed me.
     
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