*MERGED THREADS*GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? (Florida jury instructions added)

[HMSHoney24]

Absolutely guilty.

In some cases I'm pro DP and some anti...my reasoning, what existence would be worse for the convict, which would cause them more pain emotionally.

Regarding ICA, it's my opinion that she's managed quite well in jail the past 3 years and hasn't seemed to suffer the way that I'd prefer her to for having taken the life of a precious child therefore, I'd vote for the DP in her case. I'd hate to think of her yukking it up with the likes of "Cookie" and having strangers who support her send her $$$ for ho-hos while her daughter paid the ultimate price for her Mother's sociopathic behavior. Truthfully, I hope once she's convicted, she makes her prune face and her face freezes so that she's never able to smile again (that is until it's "lights out").

Ugh...I'm just so thoroughly disgusted with ICA that I can't even express it.

 

[Sleuths4Me]

Guilty. I think the jury will do LWOP but can't the judge overrule that and give her the DP if he sees it more fit? Considering he has always given the DP in all his DP cases I believe he takes this very seriously (duh..lol) I think with how she acted during those 31 days and even up until today (and tomorrow, etc) the judge doesn't like that and will give the punishment that fits the crime

 

[2goldfish]

Guilty. I think the jury will do LWOP but can't the judge overrule that and give her the DP if he sees it more fit? Considering he has always given the DP in all his DP cases I believe he takes this very seriously (duh..lol) I think with how she acted during those 31 days and even up until today (and tomorrow, etc) the judge doesn't like that and will give the punishment that fits the crime

if the jury turns in a sentence of LWOP the judge can give a sentence of death....but my guess is he will not. he's never lost a case on appeal and women are rarely given the DP....and even more rarely made to serve it.

 

[Nette]

Guilty Without A Doubt.....

 

[CharlestonGal]

While it's my personal belief that ICA willfully killed Caylee with premeditation, I came to that conclusion after following this case for nearly three years and reading every single document in every single document dump. The jury, however, has only seen and heard a fraction of that evidence.

If I knew absolutely nothing of this case except what has been presented at trial thus far I would be unable to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I knew nothing of the case and I was on that jury, I would be troubled by a number of things - no cause of death, no crime scene, no direct evidence of exactly who caused the child to be dead, or how, or why, no evidence of how her body came to rest in those woods or who put it there.

Logically speaking, ICA was the last known person to have Caylee; Caylee was decomposing in the trunk of ICAs car; items from the A home were found with the body; ICA spent 31 days partying like it was 1999. I have no personal doubt that she committed cold blooded murder, but I don't think the evidence presented proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I predict the jury will be unable to reach a verdict (probably after days and days of going round and round about it). I also think that even if they do manage to come around to a guilty verdict, they will not recommend death for the same reasons I listed in paragraph 3. IMO there are just still too many unknowns for this jury to put a young female to death.

My two cents.

 

[Turnadot]

While it's my personal belief that ICA willfully killed Caylee with premeditation, I came to that conclusion after following this case for nearly three years and reading every single document in every single document dump. The jury, however, has only seen and heard a fraction of that evidence.

If I knew absolutely nothing of this case except what has been presented at trial thus far I would be unable to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I knew nothing of the case and I was on that jury, I would be troubled by a number of things - no cause of death, no crime scene, no direct evidence of exactly who caused the child to be dead, or how, or why, no evidence of how her body came to rest in those woods or who put it there.

Logically speaking, ICA was the last known person to have Caylee; Caylee was decomposing in the trunk of ICAs car; items from the A home were found with the body; ICA spent 31 days partying like it was 1999. I have no personal doubt that she committed cold blooded murder, but I don't think the evidence presented proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I predict the jury will be unable to reach a verdict (probably after days and days of going round and round about it). I also think that even if they do manage to come around to a guilty verdict, they will not recommend death for the same reasons I listed in paragraph 3. IMO there are just still too many unknowns for this jury to put a young female to death.

My two cents.

BBM.

Interesting.

Would your opinion be different if the defendant were a man?

 

[ljs713]

Guilty of First Degree Murder

 

[GeekyGirl]

No, I'm actually very interested in the ones that aren't convinced that Casey did it. I see you mentioned "elements", if you got that from my post, I'm sorry lol, it was first degree murder elements for first degree murder in another state. In Florida for first degree murder (I edited the first page), I'm positive that you only have to establish that a)the victim is dead b)the killing was a crime c)the defendant committed the crime. I don't think how exactly she died is one of the requirements for murder.

I might be wrong, so anyone else, feel free to chime in if you've got something to add.

It's number 2 I have a problem with, at least with the evidence presented to the jury up to this point. I'm honestly frustrated with the amount of time they spent on the Internet searches and the chloroform because to me, that just underlined the point that they don't really know what caused her death. The duct tape is disturbing, but they can't prove it was placed prior to her death, only that it was placed prior to decomposition. A rational person would conclude that there's no reason to apply it after she died, but Casey hasn't been shown to be a rational person. They've portrayed her as someone who ignores reality when it doesn't suit her, goes to great lengths to lie to avoid any sort of responsibility even in the face of a mountain of evidence and often makes impulsive decisions that, honestly, boggle my mind. I can't get rid of the nagging doubt that even if something did happen to Caylee because Casey was negligent in some way, i.e. leaving her in a hot car, drowning etc., her first instinct would be to try and cover it up, because it's consistent with her past behavior.Even an accidental death would have repercussions for her, and she avoids repercussions at all costs. Lying and covering up is her MO. I said I could vote manslaughter, because I do believe they've shown Caylee was in her care at the time of her death, and therefore it's reasonable to assume she's cupable, but I can't quite get to the criminal act part. Again, this is only based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, not what I've gleaned from other places such as this board. Hope this helps explain my thought process. Thanks for all the great discussion, and for not flaming me I know how emotional this is, and how much time and energy so many of you have invested in this case.

 

[Nali87]

While it's my personal belief that ICA willfully killed Caylee with premeditation, I came to that conclusion after following this case for nearly three years and reading every single document in every single document dump. The jury, however, has only seen and heard a fraction of that evidence.

If I knew absolutely nothing of this case except what has been presented at trial thus far I would be unable to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I knew nothing of the case and I was on that jury, I would be troubled by a number of things - no cause of death, no crime scene, no direct evidence of exactly who caused the child to be dead, or how, or why, no evidence of how her body came to rest in those woods or who put it there.

Logically speaking, ICA was the last known person to have Caylee; Caylee was decomposing in the trunk of ICAs car; items from the A home were found with the body; ICA spent 31 days partying like it was 1999. I have no personal doubt that she committed cold blooded murder, but I don't think the evidence presented proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I predict the jury will be unable to reach a verdict (probably after days and days of going round and round about it). I also think that even if they do manage to come around to a guilty verdict, they will not recommend death for the same reasons I listed in paragraph 3. IMO there are just still too many unknowns for this jury to put a young female to death.

My two cents.

Are those requirements for a guilty 1st degree murder verdict though?

 

[Eidetic]

I find the defendant is guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder.

 

[Turnadot]

It's number 2 I have a problem with, at least with the evidence presented to the jury up to this point. I'm honestly frustrated with the amount of time they spent on the Internet searches and the chloroform because to me, that just underlined the point that they don't really know what caused her death. The duct tape is disturbing, but they can't prove it was placed prior to her death, only that it was placed prior to decomposition. A rational person would conclude that there's no reason to apply it after she died, but Casey hasn't been shown to be a rational person. They've portrayed her as someone who ignores reality when it doesn't suit her, goes to great lengths to lie to avoid any sort of responsibility even in the face of a mountain of evidence and often makes impulsive decisions that, honestly, boggle my mind. I can't get rid of the nagging doubt that even if something did happen to Caylee because Casey was negligent in some way, i.e. leaving her in a hot car, drowning etc., her first instinct would be to try and cover it up, because it's consistent with her past behavior.Even an accidental death would have repercussions for her, and she avoids repercussions at all costs. Lying and covering up is her MO. I said I could vote manslaughter, because I do believe they've shown Caylee was in her care at the time of her death, and therefore it's reasonable to assume she's cupable, but I can't quite get to the criminal act part. Again, this is only based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, not what I've gleaned from other places such as this board. Hope this helps explain my thought process. Thanks for all the great discussion, and for not flaming me I know how emotional this is, and how much time and energy so many of you have invested in this case.

BBM

I agree with this. Personally, I think the duct tape was applied before death, but given that it's KC, I can easily concoct a scenario in which she applied the tape in a panic to bolster a kidnapping story after she realised Caylee was dead.

 

[HopeInOhio]

Guilty.

And as far as LWOP or DP: I think the jury will spare her life because they feel so bad for Cindy. So Cindy and George and Lee and Mallory can look forward to a life of ICA sending them rage-filled letters, and barking at them for not putting money in her fund, and refusing visits whenever she feels like it, etc. In other words, she will still control their lives and make them miserable as they try to please and accomodate her while she creates her new life behind bars.

If the jury TRULY wanted the family to have peace, they would vote DP and give the Anthonys complete closure.

 

[CharlestonGal]

BBM.

Interesting.

Would your opinion be different if the defendant were a man?

I don't have any personal qualms about putting ICA to death. She deserves it, in my opinion. But I know much, much, much more about this case than the jury does. Based only on what was presented by the prosecution thus far, I do not believe this jury will recommend death for this young female. A male defendant, IMO, would get the death penalty in this case all other things being equal. No problem.

Juries tend to be reluctant to put females to death without overwhelming, justifiable reason. And this jury does not know ICA the way we know ICA. She was a young 22 year old mother whose child ended up dead in the woods with lots of missing pieces in between. The missing pieces will give them enough pause, I think, to err on the side of caution - which is LWOP.

It may not be fair, but she'll get leeway because of her youth and gender and status as a mother. A man in the same situation (especially in Fl) would be put to death without another thought, IMO.

 

[coloradoteacher]

I voted guilty- I think it will be for felony murder (just based on public opinion outside of trial- I have heard that there are people who have a hard time with the premeditation which I do not). I think she will get LWOP b/c of any lingering doubt.
I have a harder time with the jury not being able to reach a verdict, knowing how high profile this case is, they would have this in the back of their mind as to how they will feel about the publicity afterward- it is a sad but true factor in this case.

 

[SAgal]

I haven't followed the trial story closely as have most posters; and I'm receiving most information for the first time from this trial testimony.

I don't believe the DT's "story" about the accidental drowning; or George hiding the body of Caylee. I seriously doubt KC's sexual abuse accusations against GA and LA.

I have problems with the following:
Not having a cause of death.
Not understanding why Caylee's body was in the backyard; since the dogs found the "scent of decomposition" in the Anthony backyard.
Not understanding why KC borrowed a neighbor's shovel, since there were shovels in the Antony's garage.

I have a problem with the Jury asking to see the "heart evidence" - since I didn't think Jurors were allowed to discuss the case or evidence prior to deliberations.

I believe KC killed Caylee; but I'm not convinced beyond reasonable doubt at this point.

 

[GeekyGirl]

the how isn't always explained...(think convictions with no body).

I get that, really I do, but it's always much more difficult to prove first degree without a how. Every case is different, and it all depends on what evidence you can show to prove a criminal act was involved, rather than a negligent one. See my post above... I think they've made a good case for Casey's culpability, but they haven't quite connected all the dots, for me at least, to prove that her death was the result of a criminal act. MOO of course.

 

[wallflower67]

It's number 2 I have a problem with, at least with the evidence presented to the jury up to this point. I'm honestly frustrated with the amount of time they spent on the Internet searches and the chloroform because to me, that just underlined the point that they don't really know what caused her death. The duct tape is disturbing, but they can't prove it was placed prior to her death, only that it was placed prior to decomposition. A rational person would conclude that there's no reason to apply it after she died, but Casey hasn't been shown to be a rational person. They've portrayed her as someone who ignores reality when it doesn't suit her, goes to great lengths to lie to avoid any sort of responsibility even in the face of a mountain of evidence and often makes impulsive decisions that, honestly, boggle my mind. I can't get rid of the nagging doubt that even if something did happen to Caylee because Casey was negligent in some way, i.e. leaving her in a hot car, drowning etc., her first instinct would be to try and cover it up, because it's consistent with her past behavior.Even an accidental death would have repercussions for her, and she avoids repercussions at all costs. Lying and covering up is her MO. I said I could vote manslaughter, because I do believe they've shown Caylee was in her care at the time of her death, and therefore it's reasonable to assume she's cupable, but I can't quite get to the criminal act part. Again, this is only based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, not what I've gleaned from other places such as this board. Hope this helps explain my thought process. Thanks for all the great discussion, and for not flaming me I know how emotional this is, and how much time and energy so many of you have invested in this case.

I won't flame you Just wanted to point out (not to you specifically) that leaving a child in a hot car is a crime. Accidental drowning is more common, I think, and would garner more sympathy from the jurors. Leaving a kid in a hot car has happened quite a bit, but usually it's because those who do it are partying and don't want to bring the kid in with them.

 

[Nali87]

It's number 2 I have a problem with, at least with the evidence presented to the jury up to this point. I'm honestly frustrated with the amount of time they spent on the Internet searches and the chloroform because to me, that just underlined the point that they don't really know what caused her death. The duct tape is disturbing, but they can't prove it was placed prior to her death, only that it was placed prior to decomposition. A rational person would conclude that there's no reason to apply it after she died, but Casey hasn't been shown to be a rational person. They've portrayed her as someone who ignores reality when it doesn't suit her, goes to great lengths to lie to avoid any sort of responsibility even in the face of a mountain of evidence and often makes impulsive decisions that, honestly, boggle my mind. I can't get rid of the nagging doubt that even if something did happen to Caylee because Casey was negligent in some way, i.e. leaving her in a hot car, drowning etc., her first instinct would be to try and cover it up, because it's consistent with her past behavior.Even an accidental death would have repercussions for her, and she avoids repercussions at all costs. Lying and covering up is her MO. I said I could vote manslaughter, because I do believe they've shown Caylee was in her care at the time of her death, and therefore it's reasonable to assume she's cupable, but I can't quite get to the criminal act part. Again, this is only based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, not what I've gleaned from other places such as this board. Hope this helps explain my thought process. Thanks for all the great discussion, and for not flaming me I know how emotional this is, and how much time and energy so many of you have invested in this case.

Those are actually very good points. I think if Casey was rich and could afford a decent defense lawyer, she might've actually walked. Mostly because Caylee's remains were so damaged. In my opinion though, the "chloroform" searches and the fact that "chloroform" was found in the car proves at least "aggravated child abuse" and aggravated child abuse is a felony. Since Caylee died because of the abuse, that's enough for a conviction based on felony murder in 1st degree, if I'm not mistaken. I think in such a circumstansial case, you really have to take all the evidence into account. But those are actually very good points.

 

[Turnadot]

I don't have any personal qualms about putting ICA to death. She deserves it, in my opinion. But I know much, much, much more about this case than the jury does. Based only on what was presented by the prosecution thus far, I do not believe this jury will recommend death for this young female. A male defendant, IMO, would get the death penalty in this case all other things being equal. No problem.

Juries tend to be reluctant to put females to death without overwhelming, justifiable reason. And this jury does not know ICA the way we know ICA. She was a young 22 year old mother whose child ended up dead in the woods with lots of missing pieces in between. The missing pieces will give them enough pause, I think, to err on the side of caution - which is LWOP.

It may not be fair, but she'll get leeway because of her youth and gender and status as a mother. A man in the same situation (especially in Fl) would be put to death without another thought, IMO.

OK, I see what you mean now. Thank you for explaining.

 

[CathyR]

Not Guilty- state didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt many things. Manner and cause of death. Premeditated-even as crazy as a loon as she is, no proof exists she planned to kill her daughter. Responsible for it 100%. Accidental or not Casey Anthony did not do right by her daughter. If on the jury I couldn't sentence her to death. I think I would have tried on on some lessor charges first. False reporting of the child's death/missing status. Not cooperating with the investigation. Lying to police. All the things that are provable. If they waited they would have a better case for murder. The State can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally killed her daughter and then constructed this farce. They can prove the farce but the murder still eludes them. I love Dr G she did great but she couldn't say for certain what caused her death. The cause is vital as it proves intent or accident. Casey is so selfish that she would not call the police or an ambulance if she found Caylee dead. She would be more concerned about herself and how it would affect her than any concern for Caylee. Can I see her covering it up and lying about it. Seems that is how she handles all unpleasant things in life cover it up and lie about it.