goldenlover
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 206
- Reaction score
- 0
Besides, chloroform is very short acting and has to be re-dosed every 15 minutes or so. Did she keep coming out to the trunk and re-dosing her daughter? I think not.
Also look in the "urban dictionary" it is a word used quite often as slang in the younger generations along with "shovel" (which is a male form of "hoe") maybe KC heard some of the college guys using these words as slang and looked them up. otherwise why else look up the word "shovel" I am sure everyone pre-school age and older knows what a shovel is. I also agree that KC probably just looked up chloroform because of the cartoon on her boyfriends myspace page, which was right around the same time as the searches. It was that kind of evidence, IMO, that ruined the states case.
"Originally Posted by cluciano63
The state did not really have a motive, when they couldn't make use of the (alleged) fight of the night before Caylee disappeared. I KNOW they don't have a prove a motive, but when they can't tell you how she died, where she died or when she died, without dispute, and only want to tell you the who, I think it made things murky. As far as the jury could see, no one was stopping Casey from the life she was leading up until June 15th anyway. They didn't hear much to show that Cindy and she were at each other's throats."
*************************************************************************************************************
Caylee might have been killed during the fight
This question is for those that agree with the not guilty verdicts. Please help me understand.
In your opinion, how did the state not convince you? What other info would you need to convict? Do you believe the drowning theory? What do you think really happened? Do you believe Casey did it and just that the State did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? How to you explain away the 31 days? The lying? The partying? What was the reason for the duct tape?
I am just trying to understand. I hear the defense talking heads saying simply that the state did not prove their case, but they have no explained how or why or what they think really happened.
I think your questions have been answered many times here by those of us who don't think the prosecution proved its case. They did not prove when, where, why, or how Casey Anthony killed her daughter. They just didn't. I would need more than bizarre behavior from a defendant to convict him/her. I have run across enough peculiar people in my lifetime to know that just because someone does odd things doesn't mean he/she is a killer.
I think there are all kinds of explanations for what could have happened to Caylee. From the beginning I thought that she died somehow and the family freaked out about it and behaved the way the Anthony family behaves--in a very peculiar way.
I have watched a number of criminal trials over the past 20 years or so, and I thought this was the poorest performance by a prosecution team. They just didn't do their job, and I think they counted on being able to convince a jury that a bad mother and a dysfunctional family translate into a murder conviction. It doesn't work that way.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm curious about how the jury deliberated on Charge Three, which I paraphrase in part below:
Charge Three: Casey willfully or by culpable negligence, while a caregiver to Caylee, failed or omitted to provide Caylee with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain Caylees physical and mental health...
As I understand, culpable negligence involves recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences). It means failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.
I know of no reasonable explanation for ICA's failure to report Caylee's alleged pool accident. This failure, in my view, puts ICA in violation of the terms of Charge Three.
ICA is not a medical specialist trained to decide with finality that Caylee had in fact died. A reasonable effort by ICA to promote Caylee's well being would have included an immediate 911 call to have professionals intervene.
IIRC, the excuse of GA's earlier sexual abuse of ICA was ruled invalid.
I'm curious, therefore, why the jury did not find ICA in violation of Charge Three.
:coffeews::bricks:hdear:
Q What was the reason for the duct tape?
A - Good question! Maybe the jurors next week will talk and answer this for you.
A sociopath can't be helped and she steps into the world on Thursday.
Anybody who believes her to be innocent is in la la land. I hope they never feel the wrath of the likes of that inmate.
Ouch ... I don't think I am in la la land and these kind of comments are the very reason some people never posted before about this case.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm curious about how the jury deliberated on Charge Three, which I paraphrase in part below:
Charge Three: Casey willfully or by culpable negligence, while a caregiver to Caylee, failed or omitted to provide Caylee with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain Caylees physical and mental health...
As I understand, culpable negligence involves recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences). It means failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances.
I know of no reasonable explanation for ICA's failure to report Caylee's alleged pool accident. This failure, in my view, puts ICA in violation of the terms of Charge Three.
ICA is not a medical specialist trained to decide with finality that Caylee had in fact died. A reasonable effort by ICA to promote Caylee's well being would have included an immediate 911 call to have professionals intervene.
IIRC, the excuse of GA's earlier sexual abuse of ICA was ruled invalid.
I'm curious, therefore, why the jury did not find ICA in violation of Charge Three.
Also look in the "urban dictionary" it is a word used quite often as slang in the younger generations along with "shovel" (which is a male form of "hoe") maybe KC heard some of the college guys using these words as slang and looked them up. otherwise why else look up the word "shovel" I am sure everyone pre-school age and older knows what a shovel is. I also agree that KC probably just looked up chloroform because of the cartoon on her boyfriends myspace page, which was right around the same time as the searches. It was that kind of evidence, IMO, that ruined the states case.
I just wanted to thank mrsu for this thread, and for the wonderful way it's titled - it encourages a spirit of understanding and equanimity that captures the best of the WS spirit.
Ok, so my friend followed this case as long as I did. She always believed that Caylee died accidently in the pool and that the duct tape was to stop either fluid or the water from pouring out of her mouth after death. She said even in trial they never ever proved that the duct tape was placed before death. She also said she felt the partying was due from her way of dealing with the death and her way of grieving. She pointed out that she was very young minded and never wanted to face her parents. She thinks the choloform searches were out of curoisty from Ricardo post and she possibly made it and it did spill in the trunk. She doesnt believe she was choloformed. She thinks she lied about working cause she was stealing so much from other people she had to show in some way she made money. I always disagreed with her, but after the verdict, I dont know, could it be true?
Ouch ... I don't think I am in la la land and these kind of comments are the very reason some people never posted before about this case.