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

[goldenlover]

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.

 

[cluciano63]

Once she was charged with murder, in Oct 2008 or about that time, no one would have believed any kind of an accident story and JB was probably not going to allow her to admit to anything at all, since Caylee had not even been found yet. So she had to sit in jail, IMO. The state was not about to drop murder charges if she suddenly said, "oh yeah, it was an accident." So it is not really three years she kept quiet, IMO; it is 3 months. Once those murder charges came, she was keeping quiet no matter what. Why admit to an accident when there was no proof she was even dead yet? And once Caylee was found, & they upped it to capital murder, she wasn't going to say a word, IMO.

 

[cluciano63]

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.

lol, I googled "neck-breaking" a few weeks ago and something about Ultimate fighting came up...so who knows if all of these terms have other meanings...

 

[Jakpot]

"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

 

[cluciano63]

"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

No-the one thing I believe is that Cindy was in the dark at least on July 15th when called LEA...

 

[Leomoon80]

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 haven't yet gone through the posts on this thread, so forgive me if I'm simply repeating another's thoughts again.

I think the mistake was in trying to prosecute her for 1st Degree Murder, which raises the bar for evidence to take a person's life from them.

When the Prosecution does not give the direct evidence linking a person, the person will instead be given the 'benefit of the doubt"

That was the biggest mistake, imo.

Juries are by and large not really "fit" or equipped to handle such cases as these, for they are really better suited to legal minds, for a judgement, and not the everyday run of the mill mom & pop or average jane or joes.

We are not equipped or schooled to render such a judgement., and obviously this case more then many in recent history shows us this "big time"

It's simple to see.

They were tired after 5 1/2 weeks, anxious to leave and go home, probably not paid very well for over one month (does anyone know how much a jury is paid individually in Florida??)

THEN you ask them to stay and render a "fair and just verdict?"

In this "real world" we live in , how much is too much to ask of the ordinary citizen?

They aren't collecting the big bucks as the Lawyers and Judges are doing.....so this is what you get in return for bothering them in the first place! effectively FORCING people to do your bidding.

This coupled with a 1st degree murder charge brings the disaster you have now witnessed in Florida.

just my opinion.........
Questions:
Q - In your opinion, how did the state not convince you?
A - They didn't link Casey to the actual death other then by insinuation.
Did they have a Chloroform Direct link on the computer that had "her name" on it?
Q - What other info would you need to convict?
A - not much more then given , for 2nd degree or unintentional manslaughter....

Q- Do you believe Casey did it and just that the State did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

A - YES'
Q - How to you explain away the 31 days? The lying? The partying?

An immature party girl, one who is spoiled and parents never reined her in on the lies. She always lied and she always got away with it. She was as the cliche goes, "enabled" to be bad and not have consequences to her actions.

Q What was the reason for the duct tape?

A - Good question! Maybe the jurors next week will talk and answer this for you.

 

[greycoupon]

Agree with the comments about the fight. I think there is a direct connection to what happened to Caylee.

The state did a great job showing Casey's horrid behavior after Caylee passed but what about before? The mistepped horribly by painting the Anthony's as a happy, normal family. How does a normal family not realize Casey has no job for two years. What did she and Caylee do all day? She wanted to party and Caylee was getting verbal so June 16th was suddenly a good day to kill her child? Why that day and why cover it up in a fashion that would bring every one of her carefully crafted lies to the surface,

The A's didn't need much help from the DT when they all lied on the stand and made it very clear how dysfunctional they were.

 

[cluciano63]

Since the state could not really prove cause of death (and I know they don't have to) motive became more important...and they couldn't/didn't show that with any success either. IMO they needed to be able to show at least one of those elements. In other cases where forensics may not be there, a large insurance policy bought just weeks before often is. Or an affair is going on, one spouse wants out. Or a child custody battle. Those are motives a jury understands and thus can see beyond the lack of physical evidence. Here, they did not have any strong motive for Casey to kill Caylee, therefore it made it hard for the jury to convict her, especially since the prosecution only offered the scenario of premediated murder. Sure, there were other degrees of murder on the jury form, but no explanation for how any of those might be applied, because the state only had one story and stuck to it.

 

[Controversialist]

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 Caylee’s 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:

 

[Chablis]

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 Caylee’s 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:

I agree, and I thought she was going to get the 3rd degree over the pool death.

 

[blaizer]

Q What was the reason for the duct tape?

A - Good question! Maybe the jurors next week will talk and answer this for you.

I've wondered if after Caylee died/was killed, Casey was already thinking up the "kidnapped" story and placed the duct tape on her mouth/face in order to make it look like a botched kidnapping.

 

[time]

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.

 

[RANCH]

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.

If you think Casey's innocent, don't be afraid. She was found not guilty so you have good grounds to state your beliefs. The la la land comment looks to be an emotional response.IMO.

 

[wfgodot]

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.

 

[Kelroy]

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 Caylee’s 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.

I'm curious, too, and it's hard to discuss it rationally with so many rash accusations being thrown around. I don't think there's any evidence of stupidity, greed, laziness, or conspiracy on the part of the jury, so I'd like to know more about why they dismissed this charge.

As far as I can tell, of the two actual jurors who've come forward, only one--Juror 2--has said that there was a serious discussion about the manslaughter charge. (The article: Juror-says-he-wishes-theyd-had-evidence-to-put-casey-anthony-away) He said there was a dispute over who was considered Caylee's caretaker at the time of the death. In other words, it seems some of the jury believed that perhaps Casey was not watching her, that perhaps one of the parents was charged with her care, at the time of Caylee's death? I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion.

Anyway, I find it odd that Jennifer Ford has said the state should have charged Casey with a lesser crime--that the capital murder charge was what influenced their verdict. I wish some of the interviewers would ask her more about how that influenced their verdict on the manslaughter charge, which is indeed a lesser crime.

Again, putting aside all the unfounded accusations against the jury, I'd like to know more about their reasoning on this charge.

 

[SarahEcho]

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.

TY for that tip on what "shovel" means in slang. It never has made any sense why someone would look up shovel. This may or may not be the reason but certainly makes more sense.

 

[RANCH]

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.

I agree. I use to go to some other forums to read up on the OJ case. There were groups for OJ and against.Even though OJ was found not guilty like Casey, the OJ supporters would ignore,slant,and bend ALL evidence that showed him guilty. I hope that we will not see that here.The same should go for people who feel that Casey's guilty.IMO.

 

[kpalma715]

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?

 

[Leomoon80]

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?

I was watching the writer Aphrodite Jones on TV today and she was "spittin' nails" over this case. She said, she TOO had no clue anymore then the jurors as to the background of the case, so approached this case with "an open mind" all the way until the direct testimony started.
She said, she was way too busy working on her new TV Series, on ID (True Crime series) and had not watched the prior 3 years much.

She bought the "Drowning" theory by the DT until she saw the Video of George Anthony in the Jailhouse, "begging and begging Casey to tell him where little Cayley was" and then and only then, did she turn her mind around towards potentially lying or making up the drowning theory. She made a valid case to say that the jurors would have watched the SAME Video of the Jail house visits, so how could they not see Casey made that up too?

It was interesting to hear her take, so she is so immersed in the Crime world, with a TV series as well as writing or authoring after investigating other crimes.,

 

[Littleone48]

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.

A Thank you is not enough for this post! In another thread someone told me that out of all of the posters here only 5 or 6 thought Casey was innocent or that the State didn't prove their case. I for a fact know that their are many many more here who were afraid to post and still are.....just because they didn't drink the Kool-aid, feed into the media frenzy etc we are in La La Land.

I think something is very wrong with this case, the family, the way it was investigated etc....the Grund's (?name/sp) even said that this wasn't Casey, the one who was out partying, dancing, etc...they said she was a very loving Mother who adored Caylee....I am sorry but I think the jury was 100% correct in their verdict.

ETA: I cannot stand the people on HLN...never watch JVM or NG...they scream all the time, they cut off those who don't agree with them...really I think in another life they were actors...so fake!