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

[txsvicki]

My teen grandson summed this joke up pretty well. That Casey was found innocent because she's a girl and white. The rest of it, IMO, is that they feel someone has to be blamed so George is the male fallguy, the male last to see Caylee, and now branded a murderer by this same jury, at least the spokesman when he says "we think". Pretty sick and twisted.

 

[beccalecca1]

‪Casey Anthony Trial: State's Rebuttal Part 4‬‏ - YouTube

For those who agree ICA should have been found not guilty of at least manslaughter of a child, I just want to find out, what is the other explanation for the death of Caylee that makes sense, in light of these final closing arguments by the prosecution?

I re-watched closing arguments from both sides, and I just don't see how the jury could find any other explanation than at least the aggravated manslaughter of a child charge. Particularly this final clip from LDB was very compelling. She showed the circumstantial evidence very well.

According to what you quoted by Judge Perry, manslaughter would equate to Casey murdering her child, whether it be in a quick manner or by culpable negligence (withholding food, medical care, etc.) If Casey found her daughter had drowned in the pool, was already dead and didn't call 911, it doesn't qualify as culpable negligence because the child is already dead. She didn't do something to knowingly cause her death at that point.

 

[MissJames]

BBM IIRC JA stated in one of his interviews that he was made aware of the Opening Statement information a few weeks before the trial. I think this was in his first interview after the verdict.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me int he direction of that interview. I am positive that I heard him say that. TYIA

He have heard about it,but it was not part of the reciprocal discovery the two sides had agreed to.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

According to what you quoted by Judge Perry, manslaughter would equate to Casey murdering her child, whether it be in a quick manner or by culpable negligence (withholding food, medical care, etc.) If Casey found her daughter had drowned in the pool, was already dead and didn't call 911, it doesn't qualify as culpable negligence because the child is already dead. She didn't do something to knowingly cause her death at that point.

Thanks for your response - however as you mention culpable negligence for the accidental death of a child qualifies for this charge and lack of proper supervision at the pool is clearly that. The jury realized this as well, but per some of their post-trial interviews they could not find certainty as to was the caregiver when Caylee died, particularly the foreman.

I just don't see any plausible explanation the jury could have for what happened. From Greta's interview with the foreman tonight, it's clear he thinks George was involved. The story is not reasonable when compared with all the circumstantial evidence highlighted in the closing arguments by LDB.

 

[beccalecca1]

Thanks for your response - however as you mention culpable negligence for the accidental death of a child qualifies for this charge and lack of proper supervision at the pool is clearly that. The jury realized this as well, but per some of their post-trial interviews they could not find certainty as to was the caregiver when Caylee died, particularly the foreman.

I just don't see any plausible explanation the jury could have for what happened. From Greta's interview with the foreman tonight, it's clear he thinks George was involved. The story is not reasonable when compared with all the circumstantial evidence highlighted in the closing arguments by LDB.

Perry told jurors that each of us has a duty to act reasonable towards another. He said that a violation without intent is negligence. But to be culpable, Perry told the Court, the negligence must be gross and flagrant, exhibit a reckless disregard to human life or conscious disregard for the safety or welfare of the public, or the rights of others.

Perry told the court that an culpable negligence exists when you do an act, or follow a course of conduct, that you should have known would cause harm to others. Perry thereafter focused on the “of a child” section of the charge. He said that Casey was Caylee’s caregiver. Perry said that a parent is defined as a caregiver; a child is defined as anyone under age 18; and the negligent of a child by a caregiver can be exhibited with lack of food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, and medical services essential for the welfare of the child.

snipped from your first post.

I think that if the jury feels that Caylee truly drowned in the pool while George and Casey were in the house, unknowing she was in the pool (perhaps they were sleeping in the early morning hours, etc.); that doesn't qualify as culpable negligence. Am I understanding the instructions wrong?

 

[Soulmagent]

snipped from your first post.

I think that if the jury feels that Caylee truly drowned in the pool while George and Casey were in the house, unknowing she was in the pool (perhaps they were sleeping in the early morning hours, etc.); that doesn't qualify as culpable negligence. Am I understanding the instructions wrong?

I would have to point out objectively that not putting child safty locks on the sliding doors would be negligent.

Is that the homeowner or the parents negligent inaction ? Could be an interesting debate.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

According to what you quoted by Judge Perry, manslaughter would equate to Casey murdering her child, whether it be in a quick manner or by culpable negligence (withholding food, medical care, etc.) If Casey found her daughter had drowned in the pool, was already dead and didn't call 911, it doesn't qualify as culpable negligence because the child is already dead. She didn't do something to knowingly cause her death at that point.

If she found Caylee drowned, how would she know she was gone beyond recovery? Unconscious people can be resuscitated. Everyone knows that. That's why 100% of people call 911 upon finding a drowning victim, as Dr. G testified. Within that 100% would be all ranges of types of parents and caregivers, from very responsible to very negligent, from nutty to sane, from loving to hateful, and yet EVERY SINGLE person who finds a drowning victim calls 911. If Casey found her drowned and had no ill intent, she would have called, just like everyone other person. Caylee did not drown.

It's also completely improbable she drowned based on the necessary confluence of unlikely circumstances needed for the drowning to occur:

1. Caylee, who is described as obedient and who had a set routine set for swimming -- which included asking someone to take her, included changing clothes, included getting water wings -- would have to gone against all that past behavior and decided to go do this activity that's always done with others and gone on her own without getting help or letting anyone know.
2. She would have had to open the heavy glass door by herself.
3. The ladder would have had to been left up that exact same day, when they "religiously" take it down after swimming. (Cindy's testimony that she found it up on the 16th is very suspect, especially if you go over the interviews of her co-workers and the past interviews and how the story has changed.)
4. She would have climbed up the ladder by herself.
5. She would have jumped in the water by herself.
6. None of this was noticed by anyone else.
7. That day and for the next three years Casey does not tell anyone publicly she drowned, even when she's in jail on murder charges. If George knew, he doesn't say either even if it would help clear her daughter, he'd rather let her face the death penalty for something she didn't do.

You multiply all those improbabilities together and you get an even higher unlikelihood, which is compounded when you combine it with the known fact that nobody called 911, and the fact the body was callously disposed of later.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, Caylee didn't accidentally drown without Casey purposely not helping her.

 

[pcrum12]

If she found Caylee drowned, how would she know she was gone beyond recovery? Unconscious people can be resuscitated. Everyone knows that. That's why 100% of people call 911 upon finding a drowning victim, as Dr. G testified. Within that 100% would be all ranges of types of parents and caregivers, from very responsible to very negligent, from nutty to sane, from loving to hateful, and yet EVERY SINGLE person who finds a drowning victim calls 911. If Casey found her drowned and had no ill intent, she would have called, just like everyone other person. Caylee did not drown.

It's also completely improbable she drowned based on the necessary confluence of unlikely circumstances needed for the drowning to occur:

1. Caylee, who is described as obedient and who had a set routine set for swimming -- which included asking someone to take her, included changing clothes, included getting water wings -- would have to gone against all that past behavior and decided to go do this activity that's always done with others and gone on her own without getting help or letting anyone know. When LDB asked CA is Caylee was a compliant child I just about lost it. Any one that has raised a child knows that you shoyld underestimate what a child may do. Even witness testimony put Caylee running toward the pool at TL's and Casey having to run after her.
2. She would have had to open the heavy glass door by herself. Not if the door was left open alot for the dogs to go out.3. The ladder would have had to been left up that exact same day, when they "religiously" take it down after swimming. (Cindy's testimony that she found it up on the 16th is very suspect, especially if you go over the interviews of her co-workers and the past interviews and how the story has changed.) lots of diff things could have happened here. First CA could have left it up. Or Casey could have put it back up and forgot it. Or GA could have. I "never" leave my car unlocked but did once and robbed in a mall parking lot. Even if the ladder was not up but stored where they always stored it on its side against the pool, Caylee could have climbed on the side and tipped into the pool. She was after all 38-40" and the pool was only 4' high.4. She would have climbed up the ladder by herself. I'm pretty confident that she could do just that. Looks like she could even a year prior. 5. She would have jumped in the water by herself. Again, same as above.
6. None of this was noticed by anyone else. Testimony and docs show that Casey was on the phone all night and then up at what 730? Then on the pc. It only takes a couple minutes for a child to drown. As for GA, he could have been sleeping, showering, watching TV. Again, it only takes a couple minutes for a child to get away from you.7. That day and for the next three years Casey does not tell anyone publicly she drowned, even when she's in jail on murder charges. If George knew, he doesn't say either even if it would help clear her daughter, he'd rather let her face the death penalty for something she didn't do. I have my own theory for that. I've posted several times why. That house was very dark in my opinion.

You multiply all those improbabilities together and you get an even higher unlikelihood, which is compounded when you combine it with the known fact that nobody called 911, and the fact the body was callously disposed of later.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, Caylee didn't accidentally drown without Casey purposely not helping her.

So, as you can see above in red, I've refuted your circumstances with my own and I would assume that the jurors did the same. All JMOO

 

[Trident]

Thanks for your response - however as you mention culpable negligence for the accidental death of a child qualifies for this charge and lack of proper supervision at the pool is clearly that. The jury realized this as well, but per some of their post-trial interviews they could not find certainty as to was the caregiver when Caylee died, particularly the foreman.

I just don't see any plausible explanation the jury could have for what happened. From Greta's interview with the foreman tonight, it's clear he thinks George was involved. The story is not reasonable when compared with all the circumstantial evidence highlighted in the closing arguments by LDB.

I believe thinking GA is involved can be construed as reasonable doubt that Casey is guilty of anything, you can't have it both ways. I even have my doubts about GA and have for a LONG time.

My opinion only

 

[crimesnooper]

So, as you can see above in red, I've refuted your circumstances with my own and I would assume that the jurors did the same. All JMOO

I agree with all your thoughts except the last one regarding GA not reporting it. I almost started laughing when the SA used the idea that caylee was a compliant child..therefore would not have "disobeyed" and ventured out to the pool. Anyone with kids, or even without,knows that was a silly argument. For me, the not reporting the supposed drowning does not add up and is why I rejected the whole thoery.

 

[jrb0124]

I may not understand what you are trying to say, but it is accurate to say that the ME gave an expert opinion that: the MANNER of death was homicide

I think the hair we're splitting here is the adjective before the word "opinion". While Dr. G (1) was an expert witness and (2) rendered an opinion, if you note the foundations for her opinion - some or all are not interferences you have to be an expert in order to make:

"She said three factors contributed to her conclusion that Caylee's death was a homicide. First, Caylee was not reported missing. She said an accidental death, such as drowning, would have been reported. Second, the fact that Caylee's body was hidden, and finally, the presence of duct tape on Caylee's face." [LINK]

The role of an expert witness is to educate or explain to a jury issues or evidence beyond their expected common experience. The point here is that her opinion is not based on the science of her expertise, and has nothing to do with the autopsy she conducted - which is why I prefaced opinion with "scientific" in the FALSE statement. A non-ME, or non-expert, could also take the stand and say the same exact thing ... a police officer or an EMT, right? even your average Jane or Joe could say those 3 things which were expressed as "common sense", not a result of scientific evaluation.

 

[magnolia]

So, as you can see above in red, I've refuted your circumstances with my own and I would assume that the jurors did the same. All JMOO

You are within your rights to speculate and assume.The Jurors were not presented with any evidence whatsoever that Caylee drowned in the pool. They were presented with evidence that Caylee could possibly open a door, go outside,and could confidently climb a ladder while assisted by an adult. Like most children Caylee's age,she could open a door and go outside. Perhaps she was abducted? Perhaps she ran out in the street and was struck by a car?We are allowed to let our minds run wild with possibilities. The Jurors were instructed to base their deliberations only on the evidence presented to them during the trial. They were instructed not to speculate. There was no evidence presented in Court that supports a drowning theory.

 

[eleni777]

You are within your rights to speculate and assume.The Jurors were not presented with any evidence whatsoever that Caylee drowned in the pool. They were presented with evidence that Caylee could possibly open a door, go outside,and could confidently climb a ladder while assisted by an adult. Like most children Caylee's age,she could open a door and go outside. Perhaps she was abducted? Perhaps she ran out in the street and was struck by a car?We are allowed to let our minds run wild with possibilities. The Jury was instructed to deliberate only on the evidence that was presented to them during the trial. They were instructed not to speculate. There was no evidence presented in Court that supports a drowning theory.

BBM: Which in the minds of the jury created REASONABLE DOUBT.

Everybody can say what they want about Jose Biaz being a BOZO but he did his job for his client. Even Bill Shaeffer said it.."In a couple of years he's going to be a Formidable Opponent".

 

[WillChgo]

So, as you can see above in red, I've refuted your circumstances with my own and I would assume that the jurors did the same. All JMOO

You make very good points. If this was the only evidence presented in the case it would be reasonable doubt.

But non-negligent death in the pool is not consistent with:

(1) Not calling 911
(2) Not reporting it for 31 days
(3) Hiding the body in the trunk
(4) Putting 3 pieces of duct tape on a dead body.

IMO if you connect all the dots, non-negligent death in the pool makes no sense, hence there is no reasonable doubt of at least manslaughter.

 

[magnolia]

You are within your rights to speculate and assume.The Jurors were not presented with any evidence whatsoever that Caylee drowned in the pool. They were presented with evidence that Caylee could possibly open a door, go outside,and could confidently climb a ladder while assisted by an adult. Like most children Caylee's age,she could open a door and go outside. Perhaps she was abducted? Perhaps she ran out in the street and was struck by a car?We are allowed to let our minds run wild with possibilities. The Jurors were instructed to base their deliberations only on the evidence presented to them during the trial. They were instructed not to speculate. There was no evidence presented in Court that supports a drowning theory.

BBM: Which in the minds of the jury created REASONABLE DOUBT.

Everybody can say what they want about Jose Biaz being a BOZO but he did his Jjob for his client. Even Bill Shaeffer said it.."In a couple of years he's going to be a Formidable Opponent".

BBM You completely missed the point of my post.

What was one of the questions asked to each and every prospective Juror by Judge Perry?
Can you put everything you have heard about this case aside and base your decision solely on the evidence presented to you at trial. "Some people can, some people can't", said Judge Perry.

All prospective Jurors assured HHJP s/he was one of those people that could do that. They could put what they heard aside.

I don't believe the Jurors were truthful with HHJP. They could put aside what they had previously heard about the case. Yet, they were unable to put aside a theory presented to them during opening arguments by the defense Atty. A theory that was never proven. I will quote at least one Juror saying, the sexual abuse allegation was always in the back of his mind. I don't believe these Jurors were the type people that could put anything they heard aside.

 

[Chablis]

My teen grandson summed this joke up pretty well. That Casey was found innocent because she's a girl and white. The rest of it, IMO, is that they feel someone has to be blamed so George is the male fallguy, the male last to see Caylee, and now branded a murderer by this same jury, at least the spokesman when he says "we think". Pretty sick and twisted.

The problem I had with George was his theatrics. His saying stuff like, I just have to find something to get through this and all that when hes being cross examined and stuff........ I felt like George was putting on this huge show. Him saying he found it "funny" that he had an alleged affair with that woman, How is it funny? Is it funny because you are to good to have sex with her? Was it funny to be accused of adultery? I feel sorry for Cindy for having to deal with Casey and George. She is a male version of him, imo.

 

[JBean]

I think the hair we're splitting here is the adjective before the word "opinion". While Dr. G (1) was an expert witness and (2) rendered an opinion, if you note the foundations for her opinion - some or all are not interferences you have to be an expert in order to make:

"She said three factors contributed to her conclusion that Caylee's death was a homicide. First, Caylee was not reported missing. She said an accidental death, such as drowning, would have been reported. Second, the fact that Caylee's body was hidden, and finally, the presence of duct tape on Caylee's face." [LINK]

The role of an expert witness is to educate or explain to a jury issues or evidence beyond their expected common experience. The point here is that her opinion is not based on the science of her expertise, and has nothing to do with the autopsy she conducted - which is why I prefaced opinion with "scientific" in the FALSE statement. A non-ME, or non-expert, could also take the stand and say the same exact thing ... a police officer or an EMT, right? even your average Jane or Joe could say those 3 things which were expressed as "common sense", not a result of scientific evaluation.

Couple things to clear up.
Trying to clarify that the "true"statement that Dr G stated that the MOD was by undetermined means is not true. She did state that the COD was by undetermined means. COD and MOD are not interchangeable.

It is customary for the ME to include case history and events surrounding a death to render an expert opinion on MOD. So, for her to determine that the MOD was homicide, it is not outside the scope of a typical autopsy. An EMT,a non-expert,or an average Joe canNOT take the stand and say the same thing as the defintive word, because the opinion rendered by Dr G is a result of her completed autopsy,which requires expertise and special skills in that particular field. What the ME states as the MOD and COD are the final say in the matter. However, the average joe or other non expert has no say in the matter, in a legal sense.
hth

 

[magnolia]

The problem I had with George was his theatrics. His saying stuff like, I just have to find something to get through this and all that when hes being cross examined and stuff........ I felt like George was putting on this huge show. Him saying he found it "funny" that he had an alleged affair with that woman, How is it funny? Is it funny because you are to good to have sex with her? Was it funny to be accused of adultery? I feel sorry for Cindy for having to deal with Casey and George. She is a male version of him, imo.

BBM I agree with you on that. I believe our opinions may be be different, on why George was putting on a huge show though.

 

[beccalecca1]

3. The ladder would have had to been left up that exact same day, when they "religiously" take it down after swimming. (Cindy's testimony that she found it up on the 16th is very suspect, especially if you go over the interviews of her co-workers and the past interviews and how the story has changed.)

Snipped to answer this question.

A lot has already answered your questions, but I wanted to specifically show you how the Anthony's DIDN'T take the ladder down after swimming. Watch the video below, around 1:35 you can see everyone is outside in clothing (not swim suits, etc) and the ladder is attached. Caylee looks old enough to be running around in the back yard, yet no precautions were taken on that day. Pretty easy to assume precautions weren't always taken.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7QYbLkDsWU"]‪Who is Momtective? Caylee at home video‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jrb0124]

Couple things to clear up.
Trying to clarify that the "true"statement that Dr G stated that the MOD was by undetermined means is not true. She did state that the COD was by undetermined means. COD and MOD are not interchangeable.

It is customary for the ME to include case history and events surrounding a death to render an expert opinion on MOD. So, for her to determine that the MOD was homicide, it is not outside the scope of a typical autopsy. An EMT,a non-expert,or an average Joe canNOT take the stand and say the same thing as the defintive word, because the opinion rendered by Dr G is a result of her completed autopsy,which requires expertise and special skills in that particular field. What the ME states as the MOD and COD are the final say in the matter. However, the average joe or other non expert has no say in the matter, in a legal sense.
hth

BTW, thanks for moving the post to the more appropriate thread.

To clarify, the expert whose scientific opinion on MOD = "undeterminable" I was referring to was Dr. Spitz.

To get offtrack from the quality of the opinions for just a second...even if both were made as scientific opinion;

One ME expert (JG) stated homicide as MOD, the other (WS) concluded undetermined as MOD - so there is a conflict in testimony, and per the jury instructions a conflict in evidence/testimony (also weighed with witness credibility) is reasonable doubt:

WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.
.
.
EXPERT WITNESSES

Expert witnesses are like other witnesses, with one exception – the law permits an expert witness to give her opinion.

However, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe her to be an expert.

Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.
.
.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.​

Back to the opinion itself.

Dr. G's 3 foundations for her opinion of homicide: (1) accidental death of a child does not go unreported, (2) body was hidden, (3) duct tape around the face.

(1) IMO is not a qualifier for homicide as MOD, nor IMO is it an opinion based on the expertise of Dr. G. of the hundreds of thousands of missing children never found in the country, its reasonable to believe that at least some are the result of a covered-up accidental death...is it not? In fact, thats exactly what the police in Portugal accused the McCanns of.

(2) Assuming accidental deaths of children are occassionally covered up (i.e. child reported 'missing') isn't it then reasonable to presume the body was hidden?

(3) IMO this is the only possible qualifier for a ME MOD opinion to be homicide, but only if he/she is certain that the tape in fact covered the nose and mouth, and that the COD was asphyxiation. WS testified that this was impossible to determine, and there was no evidence that the duct tape covered the mouth and nose pre-mortem, causing death.

Yes, Dr. G. (an expert) gave an an opinion that MOD was homicide - but did not qualify that opinion with expert analysis. Another expert gave an opinion that MOD was undeterminable and did qualify that with expert analysis.