The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[Sustained]

Originally Posted by Sustained View Post
There is no evidence to show that FCA DID NOT make chloroform either. Since chloroform is made from bleach, ice, & acetone and all of those could have been present in the Anthony home. OCSO would have had to find a bottle of homemade chloroform to prove it. And IMO, FCA had plenty of time to ditch any homemade chloroform ... what would you do if you had killed your kid with chloroform ? Hand the bottle over to police ?

For one thing, I don't know of any household that has acetone just laying around. I believe that she would have had to have purchased it to make chloroform. Being broke as she was, I just don't see it. But still if she did purchase acetone, and make chloroform, nobody proved it or even tried to prove it.

Acetone is used as a paint thinner and solvent and I happen to have some in my garage. and it's not a stretch to think GA could have had some in his garage or shed as well, given he was pretty handy around the house. And FCA broke ? Gimme break ... all she had to do was reach into CA's purse for a little cash.

Obviously, you and I were not watching the same trial. You choose to ignore all of the "consciousness of guilt" evidence as well as the detailed forensics around the body and the car. You choose to ignore the jailhouse interviews, the tattoo, lying to police, the borrowing of the shovel, etc etc etc. None of those "dots" in and of itself proves that FCA killed Caylee and disposed of the body. But for those who choose to work the puzzle, it's actually quite simple to make the connection.

I watched the same trial. Lying, Tatoo's, partying: are not evidence or proof, that she murdered Caylee. There wasn't anything surrounding the shovel that proved anything. Nothing ties KC to disposing the body.

Nothing x/c for the Henkel duct tape, the laundry bag, Caylee's clothes, and the fact FCA was the only one to drive the Sunfire between 6/16 & 6/27.

Do me a favor ... go look up "consciousness of guilt" and you will see that "consciousness of guilt" IS CONSIDERED EVIDENCE in a court of law. Lying to police, a Bella Vita tattoo, partying for 31 days are evidence of "consciousness of guilt" IF YOUR DAUGHTER IS ALREADY DEAD

And most of us verdict supporters know how the court systems works ... sometimes innocent people go to jail and guilty ones walk. And sometimes a jury just doesn't get it, doesn't understand the jury instructions, and makes a mistake. In this case, it was a huge mistake ...

Always my opinion ...

Comments in red ...

In a criminal prosecution, “consciousness of guilt” is not its own form of evidence, but is a type of circumstantial evidence, which comprises its probative value on the theory that, whether deliberately or accidentally discovered, the conduct of the accused (usually after the crime) provides “a rich vein of inculpatory data” that can be a factual base upon which to infer the guilty mind of the accused.

 

[MissJames]

My Opinion (and it wont be popular):

<snipped for space>

Do I believe the jury did their job? No. Not even close. They didn't bother to review anything. The did not bother to listen to or ensure they understood their instructions. They clearly got several pieces of evidence wrong. But there you go, and what do you expect when the freaking prosecutor is acting like a Kindergartener during the closing arguments. If he can't be serious why should they.

BBM : Why should they? Because they're grown adults whose decision has repercussions,not just for Casey ,but the for the community,for her next victim. They can't use a kindergartner's excuse "if he can do it why can't I? "

I wish JA had not smiled,but JB was making it up as he went along , in an overly dramatic fashion . It WAS laughable and unbelievable.

IMO the defense did a horrible job ,repeatedly asking improper questions ,constantly being sustained. Their expert witnesses sounded silly and completely not credible .None of them had a fraction of the expertise that the States expert witnesses had,with the exception of Dr. Spitz and unfortunately he's been around TOO long.
Throughout the trial posters and the media were constantly questioning if Casey could claim ineffective counsel.

All the more reason I continue to be stunned at the NG verdict.

 

[MissJames]

I will ask respectfully for posters to not comment within each others posts. By the time you're on the third pass,you can no longer tell who said what.

And we are just a typical family,but we have acetone to thin paint and clean brushes after using oil based paint.

 

[sacrablue]

BBM : Why should they? Because they're grown adults whose decision has repercussions,not just for Casey ,but the for the community,for her next victim. They can't use a kindergartner's excuse "if he can do it why can't I? "

I wish JA had not smiled,but JB was making it up as he went along , in an overly dramatic fashion . It WAS laughable and unbelievable.

IMO the defense did a horrible job ,repeatedly asking improper questions ,constantly being sustained. Their expert witnesses sounded silly and completely not credible .None of them had a fraction of the expertise that the States expert witnesses had,with the exception of Dr. Spitz and unfortunately he's been around TOO long.
Throughout the trial posters and the media were constantly questioning if Casey could claim ineffective counsel.

All the more reason I continue to be stunned at the NG verdict.

................................................................

I thought Spitz had nothing to add. It was very obvious to me he was forcing nonsense into the equation for big bucks. The DNA and duct tape testimony was pathetic at best.

 

[MissJames]

Here's the dilemma. What was the state's theory on how Caylee died? That she was chloroformed and duct taped by her mother, then thrown in the trunk? Now before everyone jumps up and says they don't have to prove how she died, why float a theory to the jury then? Why introduce the chloroform evidence if you don't have a theory as to how it was used in connection to the crime?

I just posted about this. Because it was there ! How could they ignore it? It showed up in the tests . What should they have done? The tests were part of discovery .it was there.

As I said ,Caylee could have died,simply from being put into the trunk in the FL heat.They didn't need a weapon at all. But it was there for everyone looking at the test to see and with the FL sunshine law it was made public.

 

[Baznme]

Here's the dilemma. What was the state's theory on how Caylee died? That she was chloroformed and duct taped by her mother, then thrown in the trunk? Now before everyone jumps up and says they don't have to prove how she died, why float a theory to the jury then? Why introduce the chloroform evidence if you don't have a theory as to how it was used in connection to the crime?

It wasn't just a "theory" floated by the jury, it was backed by evidence AND that was precisely the jury's job to figure out if it was there. They knew the duct tape was there. They knew the decomp was in that trunk but because of the way the chloroform evidence was presented, it was very confusing. I get that so, why didn't ask for clarification? Without the video of the act itself, it's not how she died that was the problem, it was if she died while in her mother's care. There wasn't even any consideration given to the fact that FCA never even reported it! To this day, she hasn't reported it! She hasn't had anything to offer for an explanation until the opening of the trial with the BS story of SODDI.

Just a little logic.......that was the jury's job. Even if you took the chloroform out of the picture, there was still plenty there to deduce that Caylee was in an environment that was unsafe for her well-being. Decomp in your trunk and duct tape on your child do not bode well for "good parenting". So, if your argument is that the jury should have had everything put together FOR them, I disagree vehemently. They did not do their job. The prosecution did the best they could to show the jury this did not happen to Caylee because SODDI.

 

[imagirlgeek]

For one thing, I don't know of any household that has acetone just laying around. I believe that she would have had to have purchased it to make chloroform. Being broke as she was, I just don't see it. But still if she did purchase acetone, and make chloroform, nobody proved it or even tried to prove it.

Just popping my head in for a second to say that I have acetone out in the garage right now. My grandfather got it at Home Depot and brought it over when we were putting laquer on some bookshelves. It's really good for cleaning paint brushes.

 

[MissJames]

BBM : Why should they? Because they're grown adults whose decision has repercussions,not just for Casey ,but the for the community,for her next victim. They can't use a kindergartner's excuse "if he can do it why can't I? "

I wish JA had not smiled,but JB was making it up as he went along , in an overly dramatic fashion . It WAS laughable and unbelievable.

IMO the defense did a horrible job ,repeatedly asking improper questions ,constantly being sustained. Their expert witnesses sounded silly and completely not credible .None of them had a fraction of the expertise that the States expert witnesses had,with the exception of Dr. Spitz and unfortunately he's been around TOO long.
Throughout the trial posters and the media were constantly questioning if Casey could claim ineffective counsel.

All the more reason I continue to be stunned at the NG verdict.[/QUOTE
................................................................

I thought Spitz had nothing to add. It was very obvious to me he was forcing nonsense into the equation for big bucks. The DNA and duct tape testimony was pathetic at best.

Hi sacrablue:seeya: My eyes must be wonky today.
There's a blue quote button at the bottom of each post .If you click on that it puts the post you're quoting into it's own box,so readers can clearly see where the OP stops and the reply starts. Much easier on old eyes like mine :tyou:

 

[Chris_Texas]

I am very familiar with computers and know that you only need to search for a web page ONE time to get the information requested. (How To Make Chloroform). All you need is a paper and pencil or printer to retain that information. For that matter, you could save the web page contents to a file. The number of times it was viewed (not searched) is irrelevant.

It becomes relevant when the 84 searches are trumpeted as a critical piece of evidence in the case.

A miniscule quantity of a volatile chemical that is detected months later is very significant to me. Who knows, maybe KC bought the chloroform from somebody else. Maybe she was looking up how to make it because she didn't have enough money to buy from her regular "supplier".

Or maybe, and more likely, the chloroform reading was an error. ICA was LAZY, she wasn't making Chloroform or anything else. She searched for the term because she, like millions of others (including me) saw the classic meme motivational poster and wanted to know what it was. And having a murderous mind, she probably looked up how to make it on the off chance it was simple.

If this influenced the jury then they did not follow the jury instructions. They are told specifically not to allow their feelings about an attorney factor into their verdict.

Yeah, there were a lot of instructions they didn't seem to follow. But again, they watched the guy who gets paid big bucks to follow the rules openly ignoring them as well.

Not so sure it was unrebutted, but with two different "definitions" of reasonable doubt, it certainly confused them. (IMO)

I agree. I would think that in a case like this, which really relies on circumstantial evidence and reasonable conclusions, that the prosecution would spend a little time explaning what reasonable doubt means and why the evidence they presented rises above that.

I think JA's giggle was wrong, but (IMO) both sides were acting like kindergartners.

It was not just JA's giggling -- which ALONE could have resulted in a mistrial -- but the entire performance of head shaking and face palming which preceeded it. I was astonished at this display. I really really admiredthe guy leading up to that point, I thought he was brilliant, and I pretty much lost 90% of my respect for him right there.

 

[Sustained]

It becomes relevant when the 84 searches are trumpeted as a critical piece of evidence in the case.

One of a 100 critical pieces of evidence ...

Or maybe, and more likely, the chloroform reading was an error. ICA was LAZY, she wasn't making Chloroform or anything else. She searched for the term because she, like millions of others (including me) saw the classic meme motivational poster and wanted to know what it was. And having a murderous mind, she probably looked up how to make it on the off chance it was simple.

On the off chance, she could simply make it and "off" her child.

Yeah, there were a lot of instructions they didn't seem to follow. But again, they watched the guy who gets paid big bucks to follow the rules openly ignoring them as well.

Ashton makes about $125K a year ... are you talking about CM/JB who chose to ignore the rules of discovery when they felt like it ?

I agree. I would think that in a case like this, which really relies on circumstantial evidence and reasonable conclusions, that the prosecution would spend a little time explaning what reasonable doubt means and why the evidence they presented rises above that.

I'm sure the next time they will as they probably incorrectly assumed that the jury could certainly put their minds together and do a simple "connect the dots" puzzle.

It was not just JA's giggling -- which ALONE could have resulted in a mistrial -- but the entire performance of head shaking and face palming which preceeded it. I was astonished at this display. I really really admiredthe guy leading up to that point, I thought he was brilliant, and I pretty much lost 90% of my respect for him right there.

Not me, when a defense lawyer puts on a comedic performance such as their opening statement, I would have been rolling on the floor. Ashton was brilliant the whole trial, turning the defense "experts" into State's witnesses. And you seem to forget JB's floundering oft-objected leading questions and the "cut the cheese" comment ...

Comments in blue ...

 

[Baznme]

KC didn't make chlorform, there was absolutly not one piece of evidence to come to that conclusion, and the prosecution never even went there.

You say there are all these dots but you can't connect them to anybody. It is clear that speculation didn't work with the jury and IMOO anybody that watched this trial with the absolute thoughts of "Innocent until proven guilty"

I truly believe that from the beginning most people said KC was guilty from day one and continued to think so all the way through the trial. I'm not bashing anyone for doing that, they have every right, but it isn't the way that our court system works.

BBM - You don't know that with any certainty. The piece of evidence related to it is the INTEREST in the making of chloroform.

Court is over and we are here now discussing the verdict, not how our system works. If there is belief that KC was guilty from day one, it's from the three+ years that many have been members here and have done the research and kept up to date with every minute detail to come to those conclusions.

 

[Chris_Texas]

BBM : Why should they? Because they're grown adults whose decision has repercussions,not just for Casey ,but the for the community,for her next victim. They can't use a kindergartner's excuse "if he can do it why can't I? "

I wish JA had not smiled,but JB was making it up as he went along , in an overly dramatic fashion . It WAS laughable and unbelievable.

IMO the defense did a horrible job ,repeatedly asking improper questions ,constantly being sustained. Their expert witnesses sounded silly and completely not credible .None of them had a fraction of the expertise that the States expert witnesses had,with the exception of Dr. Spitz and unfortunately he's been around TOO long.
Throughout the trial posters and the media were constantly questioning if Casey could claim ineffective counsel.

All the more reason I continue to be stunned at the NG verdict.

<mod snip>

I posted again and again that I thought that they were doing a fantastic job defending this <mod snip>. They didn't use facts, except where the prosecution did not have them, they used razzle dazzle and misdirection, they threw out theory after theory, look over here, no over there, no back here, if the glove doesn't fit Casey didn't do s**t... and yeah, they lost damn near every objection. It was a freaking sideshow.

And it worked. It worked because the prosecution started playing their game and they overplayed the actual evidence that they had. This case is not based on internet searches and weird-science chloroform detectors, it is based on Casey's conduct. Who she is, what she did, how she acted. Her lies and her parties and her tattoos. The stuff that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the pretty girl in the prim and homey collared shirts is not the real ICA. That the real ICA is a lying manipulative evil ***** who murdered her infant so she could keep clubbing.

You know, the stuff the prosecution didn't really bother with until the last possible minute, when it was pretty much too late.

My Opinion Only

 

[LambChop]

snip

I posted again and again that I thought that they were doing a fantastic job defending this <mod snip>. They didn't use facts, except where the prosecution did not have them, they used razzle dazzle and misdirection, they threw out theory after theory, look over here, no over there, no back here, if the glove doesn't fit Casey didn't do s**t... and yeah, they lost damn near every objection. It was a freaking sideshow.

And it worked. It worked because the prosecution started playing their game and they overplayed the actual evidence that they had. This case is not based on internet searches and weird-science chloroform detectors, it is based on Casey's conduct. Who she is, what she did, how she acted. Her lies and her parties and her tattoos. The stuff that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the pretty girl in the prim and homey collared shirts is not the real ICA. That the real ICA is a lying manipulative evil ***** who murdered her infant so she could keep clubbing.

You know, the stuff the prosecution didn't really bother with until the last possible minute, when it was pretty much too late.

My Opinion Only

SA was trumped by the sexual abuse card. Jurors admitted they discussed it. The whole case was lost at that point. jmo

 

[Baznme]

I posted again and again that I thought that they were doing a fantastic job defending this <mod snip>. They didn't use facts, except where the prosecution did not have them, they used razzle dazzle and misdirection, they threw out theory after theory, look over here, no over there, no back here, if the glove doesn't fit Casey didn't do s**t... and yeah, they lost damn near every objection. It was a freaking sideshow.

And it worked. It worked because the prosecution started playing their game and they overplayed the actual evidence that they had. This case is not based on internet searches and weird-science chloroform detectors, it is based on Casey's conduct. Who she is, what she did, how she acted. Her lies and her parties and her tattoos. The stuff that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the pretty girl in the prim and homey collared shirts is not the real ICA. That the real ICA is a lying manipulative evil ***** who murdered her infant so she could keep clubbing.

You know, the stuff the prosecution didn't really bother with until the last possible minute, when it was pretty much too late.

My Opinion Only

You know the real shame of it all? This trial was supposed to be about the "truth" and what happened to Caylee. We are no closer today (legally) than we were on 6/16/2008.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I watched the trial, or most of it, as well. snip

I posted again and again that I thought that they were doing a fantastic job defending this <snip> They didn't use facts, except where the prosecution did not have them, they used razzle dazzle and misdirection, they threw out theory after theory, look over here, no over there, no back here, if the glove doesn't fit Casey didn't do s**t... and yeah, they lost damn near every objection. It was a freaking sideshow.

And it worked. It worked because the prosecution started playing their game and they overplayed the actual evidence that they had. This case is not based on internet searches and weird-science chloroform detectors, it is based on Casey's conduct. Who she is, what she did, how she acted. Her lies and her parties and her tattoos. The stuff that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the pretty girl in the prim and homey collared shirts is not the real ICA. That the real ICA is a lying manipulative evil ***** who murdered her infant so she could keep clubbing.

You know, the stuff the prosecution didn't really bother with until the last possible minute, when it was pretty much too late.

My Opinion Only

BBM - I agree with that part I bolded here. What sickens me though, and I felt this way as it was playing out, is that a "team" shouldn't win when their defense is based on lies and breaking rules. This was more of a "sporting event" than a trial. A win is not a win if the "team" cheats/lies. At least it shouldn't be. To me, the purpose of the trial is to get to the truth - for justice. JMO

 

[stilettos]

SA was trumped by the sexual abuse card. Jurors admitted they discussed it. The whole case was lost at that point. jmo

Case was lost in jury selection and they were never a death qualified jury and they did not even review the evidence...disgusting. They never even reviewed the charging instructions. ARGH.

 

[lauriej]

Moving along: JA's behavior in court, particularly during the closing arguments, was outrageous. I really like the guy, but that was beyond unprofessional. I believe it influenced the jury.

Do I believe the jury did their job? No. Not even close. They didn't bother to review anything. The did not bother to listen to or ensure they understood their instructions. They clearly got several pieces of evidence wrong. But there you go, and what do you expect when the freaking prosecutor is acting like a Kindergartener during the closing arguments. If he can't be serious why should they.

BBM : Why should they? Because they're grown adults whose decision has repercussions,not just for Casey ,but the for the community,for her next victim. They can't use a kindergartner's excuse "if he can do it why can't I? "

I wish JA had not smiled,but JB was making it up as he went along , in an overly dramatic fashion . It WAS laughable and unbelievable.

IMO the defense did a horrible job ,repeatedly asking improper questions ,constantly being sustained. Their expert witnesses sounded silly and completely not credible .None of them had a fraction of the expertise that the States expert witnesses had,with the exception of Dr. Spitz and unfortunately he's been around TOO long.
Throughout the trial posters and the media were constantly questioning if Casey could claim ineffective counsel.

All the more reason I continue to be stunned at the NG verdict.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

--Jury Instructions---Casey Anthony Trial---

RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.

4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.

5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law.

6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.

7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.

8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.
Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in thes instructions.

 

[Chris_Texas]

You know the real shame of it all? This trial was supposed to be about the "truth" and what happened to Caylee. We are no closer today (legally) than we were on 6/16/2008.

We would like trials to be about truth. They are not. They are about reaching a verdict.

I learned this a long time ago when I was called upon to testify as an expert at a trial. I, like several others that were there, knew exactly what happened.

No one in that courtroom was interested.

 

[stilettos]

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

--Jury Instructions---Casey Anthony Trial---

RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.

4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.

5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law.

6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.

7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.

8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.
Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in thes instructions.

So in my opinion the Judge...knowing what the jurors have said in the media...should have brought them in and gotten them on the record, thrown out this improper verdict and ordered a new trial. Because this jury admittedly came to a verdict against the legal jury instructions by the Court.

 

[Chris_Texas]

BBM - I agree with that part I bolded here. What sickens me though, and I felt this way as it was playing out, is that a "team" shouldn't win when their defense is based on lies and breaking rules. This was more of a "sporting event" than a trial. A win is not a win if the "team" cheats/lies. At least it shouldn't be. To me, the purpose of the trial is to get to the truth - for justice. JMO

It is the JOB of the defense team to do everything (legal) they can to win their case.

It is the prosecution's job to present their evidence and theories to the jury in such a manner that all twelve, every single one of them, can reach no other conclusion. They must have the facts that they present in order, airtight, and so idiot-simple that the dumbest guy on the jury understands it and agrees. And they must do this with every fact that they present.

They know going in that the defense is going to try to sidetrack the discussion, they are gonna offer excuses, explanations, present questions and try to raise doubts. They know that if the defense can call even ONE of their facts, one critical piece of evidence into question, the credibility of the entire case can collapse. It is the prosecution's job to be 100% sure of everything they present, it is the defense's job to say "Yeah? So what? That doesn't mean anything!" It is the defense's JOB to be critical of every hole in the prosecutions case, it is the prosecutor's job to eliminate the holes or show why they do not matter.

It's supposed to be tough.

Everyone on this forum knew ALLL about ICA's many lies. They knew all about who she was and how she lived. They knew all about what she did while her child rotted in a swamp. They jury, on the other hand, got to listen to days and days of everything but that. They heard about internet searches that NO ONE, including the prosecution, believes occured. They heard about weird smell machines and experimental air samplers. They heard all about George's suicide, and his character. They learned all about the poor guy who actually discovered the body, and his absolutely insane efforts to get the police to pay attention. They spent more time hearing about this poor guy's failed marriage and his numerous human imperfections than they heard about Casey's insane post-murder party lifestyle.

And people say the prosecution did a good job and the defense sucked?