The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[annalia]

Prior to CM joining the DT, he had the same information we had via sunshine law at that point in time. As many TH lawyers had stated at that point in time, it did look like KC would be given the DP or LWOP or there would be a circus trial.

After joining the DT, CM was then priveleged to information he did not previously have, and upon reviewing this new information, he changed his previous opinion. That doesn't seem so hard to understand to me.

I can agree however, that prior to joining the team, CM perceived guilt.

My entire post, is my opinion only.

What information would the be? Words from the liar Casey? That's all he would have as there was no evidence of sexual abuse or drowning except from the mouth of Casey.

How does one review non existent information? He heard Casey and thought ok that sounds good, we'll go with that? Because that's all it amounted to, the words of a pathologial liar.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I gotta say I am impressed with the jurors ability to speed read then, and review evidence - more than 350 pieces in five hours - that would be 70 pieces an hour - they need to package that technique and sell it.

hypothetical jury deliberations:

Foreman was chosen, Two people were willing, they all agreed on juror 11.

The initial vote on the first charge was 10-2. The deliberation needed at this point was to discuss why the 2 felt she was guilty on charge 1. We can only guess as to what they actually talked about but it could have been something like this.

I think the chloroform searches prove premeditated murder, because who looks up how to make chloroform 84 times.

I agree, thats why I think she is guilty of the first charge also.

Well, the search only lasted 3 minutes, and that doesn't make sense, besides, the way I understood it, there was only 1 chloroform search and the 84 times was for myspace. Anyway, JA said "he could only hope KC used the chloroform first so Caylee didn't suffer." To me, that means the state is only hoping and or guessing or speculating that chloroform was ever even used, and they never showed any proof of it being made.

Within an hour or so of talking, the new vote was 12 - 0 not guilty on count 1, and they had also decided 12 - 0 guilty on the 4 counts of lying.

That means they spent roughly 8 hours deliberating over counts 2 and 3. The initial vote here was 6 - 6. We don't know how strongly these voters felt either way. We don't know if there was any argument at all about evidence. They could have all believed or disbelieved the same evidence, and in that case would not have needed to review. Those who talked seemed to indicate they were having trouble as to who was the caregiver. I am certain, there was concern that KC had some responsiblity, and this contributed to the 6 6 split initially. Since the state never proved when or how Caylee died, they would have had a hard time deciding when Caylee died themselves, since there was never any proof as to when she died. So when trying to decide who the caregiver was, well, what is the time frame, what are the parameters? Some of the jurors felt GA was not credible. Does anyone on this site know what time Caylee died? Can anyone on this site show a proven time frame. Did Caylee really die on the 16th? Is there any proof of that? How does the jury know if she died on the 16th, or if she died on the 15th when CA was home as well? All the A's were not credible. All of the jurors may have decided that the duct tape may have been on the face, but it may not have been, and if that is how they felt, then they have to go with it wasn't according to the law. Her behavior seemed to be part of the discussion, but as one juror stated, bad behavior does not prove she murdered her child. The state did not show proof of murder according to the jurors who spoke. They may have all felt terrible and that KC was partially responsible, but after 8 hours of deliberating, they ultimately, unanimously rendered a verdict of not guilty on the first 3 counts. They did their job, to the best of their abilities. Maybe they did get it wrong, but I personally think they got it right. I think they did deliberate properly, and go over whatever was necessary to end up agreeing unanimously.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

What information would the be? Words from the liar Casey? That's all he would have as there was no evidence of sexual abuse or drowning except from the mouth of Casey.

How does one review non existent information? He heard Casey and thought ok that sounds good, we'll go with that? Because that's all it amounted to, the words of a pathologial liar.

There are many things that the prosecution successfully kept the DT from entering into evidence. You and I cannot possibly know what information CM learned after joining the DT. According to his actions, whatever that information was, indicated he had had a change of heart. JMO

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Amazing! I think you may have inadvertently illustrated the gaping (worm)holes in the pro-verdict reasoning: it's pure sophistry. There is, in actuality, no logic or "reasonable doubt" in effect here. Just smoke and mirrors. A shell game. (Which are exactly the analogies I used to describe JB's tactics throughout the trial.)

When one goes to the grocery store, and enters the produce department, it would be considered unreasonable to send the produce for further testing to make sure that one is, indeed, buying an apple. If inclined, one may "test" the produce for ripeness (as in, thump on a cantaloupe) or check for bruising, but to actually insist that the apples be sent off for verification that these apples are indeed apples! One could expect to be thrown out of the store for such a performance, if not arrested, because such a request exceeds the bounds of reason.

Really, the computer brand analogy is a bit much. They don't look like apples of the fruit kind, or taste like apples, or even smell like them. All one has to do is hold up the fruit next to the smartphone (or child's toy) and most folks can tell the difference without the assistance of an expert witness. If pro-verdict reasoning includes confusing a piece of fruit with a smartphone then, good grief, that sure explains a lot!

A shell game was exactly what I thought JA was doing with the fatty substance like adipocere. JMO

 

[Caligram]

Once a member of the DT, defensive loyalty became a requirement. The more lawyers on their team, the more they can look for ways to rewrite the entire truthy-tale about what happened to Caylee Marie. But before they could get the jury interested, the DT had to re-direct the focus on FCA, to come up with an entire new fairy tale that would declare that FCA was "the victim", and someone else had to be the big bad wolf, the ogre, so…who else but GA. So now the DT had a new tale with a new "victim" and an "ogre". Oh, wait....what about Caylee Marie. Oh, see ~ it is all quite clear now, the DT created a new part for Caylee Marie… the sacrificial lamb...she climbed into the pool and drowned. That takes care of the "snot head", now the DT team shifts to work on muddying up all the prosecution expert witness testimonies with shifty defense experts. Priority one was the big stink over the rotten smell of decomposition that rotting snot head left in the FCA's trunk. (Note: Snot-head was a term used by FCA in reference to the daughter she loved with all her heart.) The entire DT was rewritten with an entirely different tale, and presented in the obscene, con-coc-ted smutty-tale which JB smirked-out in his OS. Oblivious to nothing but his pride in his clever-ness. JB, the "P" man strutted like a peacock before the jury. The jury had an obvious preference for fairy tales. Much easier to stay oblivious than to confront the grim realities of what happened to a helpless little girl named Caylee Marie.
Doesn’t take much to stretch the truth, just a lack of ethics, and a desire to win at any cost, any way.
IMO

 

[annalia]

There are many things that the prosecution successfully kept the DT from entering into evidence. You and I cannot possibly know what information CM learned after joining the DT. According to his actions, whatever that information was, indicated he had had a change of heart. JMO

But you seem to claim to know.

What evidence pertaining to sexual abuse and accidental death was the prosecution successful in keeping out?

We can all sit here all day and just make things up, but in the end none of it, be it sexual abuse or accidental drowning was anything more than imaginations and fantasy. Which is apparently all the defense appeared to have and used. It worked though in getting casey off.

JMHO

 

[Baznme]

hypothetical jury deliberations:

Foreman was chosen, Two people were willing, they all agreed on juror 11.

The initial vote on the first charge was 10-2. The deliberation needed at this point was to discuss why the 2 felt she was guilty on charge 1. We can only guess as to what they actually talked about but it could have been something like this.

I think the chloroform searches prove premeditated murder, because who looks up how to make chloroform 84 times.

I agree, thats why I think she is guilty of the first charge also.

Well, the search only lasted 3 minutes, and that doesn't make sense, besides, the way I understood it, there was only 1 chloroform search and the 84 times was for myspace. Anyway, JA said "he could only hope KC used the chloroform first so Caylee didn't suffer." To me, that means the state is only hoping and or guessing or speculating that chloroform was ever even used, and they never showed any proof of it being made.

Within an hour or so of talking, the new vote was 12 - 0 not guilty on count 1, and they had also decided 12 - 0 guilty on the 4 counts of lying.

That means they spent roughly 8 hours deliberating over counts 2 and 3. The initial vote here was 6 - 6. We don't know how strongly these voters felt either way. We don't know if there was any argument at all about evidence. They could have all believed or disbelieved the same evidence, and in that case would not have needed to review. Those who talked seemed to indicate they were having trouble as to who was the caregiver. I am certain, there was concern that KC had some responsiblity, and this contributed to the 6 6 split initially. Since the state never proved when or how Caylee died, they would have had a hard time deciding when Caylee died themselves, since there was never any proof as to when she died. So when trying to decide who the caregiver was, well, what is the time frame, what are the parameters? Some of the jurors felt GA was not credible. Does anyone on this site know what time Caylee died? Can anyone on this site show a proven time frame. Did Caylee really die on the 16th? Is there any proof of that? How does the jury know if she died on the 16th, or if she died on the 15th when CA was home as well? All the A's were not credible. All of the jurors may have decided that the duct tape may have been on the face, but it may not have been, and if that is how they felt, then they have to go with it wasn't according to the law. Her behavior seemed to be part of the discussion, but as one juror stated, bad behavior does not prove she murdered her child. The state did not show proof of murder according to the jurors who spoke. They may have all felt terrible and that KC was partially responsible, but after 8 hours of deliberating, they ultimately, unanimously rendered a verdict of not guilty on the first 3 counts. They did their job, to the best of their abilities. Maybe they did get it wrong, but I personally think they got it right. I think they did deliberate properly, and go over whatever was necessary to end up agreeing unanimously.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I think most of us know what your position is on the possible hows and whys on the deliberations and the concluded verdict, but, it isn't an easy thing to accept. You do make some valid points but, it just doesn't serve the justice so many were seeking for this little girl.

While the entire case reaks of lies, the jury seemed to go through the evidence like a box of leftover yard sale items tossing what they "thought" was something they could not find proof in and keeping the "safe" violations to use in making their decision, i.e., lying to police. Maybe having been exposed to every facet of this case as many on this forum and many similiar forums have for the past three years, makes it even more unbelievable that they would come up with this verdict. For instance, last night on 48 hours, there were two men interviewed that were friends of KC. Both of those friends have posted here at one time or another and we remember those conversations. At the time, they claimed they really didn't know her very well but, yet their faces are right there on TV now that it's over.

I remember talk from acquaintenances of KC's about the days of going to parties, putting Caylee to sleep in another room or in the middle of the floor. Seemed just any ole where was good enough as long as she was asleep. People would remark about "how can she sleep through all this" because of the noise...etc. Those things stick in my head. Did she slip her a little rum to put her out? Who knows but, we kind of got a glimpse of what those days were like for Caylee.

That being said, although the pro-verdict supporters expect those that are not.....to just accept it and go on home, that's not something so easily done. I will never forget this case and I wait for the day she trips up and the real truth comes out although, I may never live long enough to see it.

 

[LambChop]

Two things the jury did not see. #1. that the State's evidence remained consistent throughout the whole investigation. They presented what they had and asked the jury to use their common sense. #2. the defense's strategy changed like the wind. KC's stories changed, their theories changed and in the end they went with the biggest fairy tale of all and a jury bought it.

If you were to interview these same people now, you would hear a much different story than we would imagine I'm sure. jmo

 

[TexasLori]

...and I was waiting for someone to say that. I'd lol...but it's just too sad...IMO.

PS- and if only the jury did the same thing. There was no emotion attached to just not liking George...pleeeez!

Trust me, I fully believe the jury got it wrong and I'm mad as heck about it. But I try to keep the emotion out of the argument so no one on the pro-verdict side uses that to tear apart my debate. That's why I won't ever say "would you let her babysit" and " did they think about Caylee." It tears my heart that she didn't get justice. I have cried many tears for Caylee before the verdict and after. But I have to remember to keep the emotion out of my arguments.

 

[LambChop]

Remember this leopards do not change their spots. She is a creature of habit so I doubt it is possible for her to change now. jmo

 

[Caligram]

Yes, I too remember the friends slipping up when describing the times FCA brought Caylee Marie along to a party. They described it as Caylee Marie being so attached to FCA that she would become fearful and cry out when her mother disappeared. FCA would disappear behind a closed door for a quickie with a willing male. I suppose that if the jury had heard about these "good mom" gone bad scenes they would have dismissed them as circumstantial. Yes, with FCA it was all about circumstances, ones that pleased her, of course.
Poor frightened little Caylee Marie, waking up to noisy drinking party-loving strangers, and her mother nowhere to be seen.

 

[cluciano63]

He/she, as well as the rest of us verdict opponents are still waiting for the verdict supporters to provide one documented case (out of tens of thousands of drownings) where 911 was not called and the accident was staged to look like a murder.

We might never know, lots of children have vanished and bodies never found...

 

[PeteyGirl]

In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

We see the same thing very differently

 

[cuppy199]

There are many things that the prosecution successfully kept the DT from entering into evidence. You and I cannot possibly know what information CM learned after joining the DT. According to his actions, whatever that information was, indicated he had had a change of heart. JMO

The action I have see from CM is more time on TV. Just because he climbed on to the gravy train doesnt mean he had a change of heart. I guess the parts of DT that left for reason unknown might of had a change of heart as well.