Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[kgeaux]

So you are worried about a lack of blowflies, but you have no problem discounting the 10 people who smelled what they recognized as death in the car? Along with the cadaver dog? Along with the "coincidental" finding of Caylee';s hair in the trunk that shows death banding (that although isnt 100 percent provable, cannot be replicated in any other way?) And the self serving message she sent to Amy admitting her car smelt like death? I dont understand how you can let one little thing like lack of blowflies bother you, but all that stuff can be handwaved away.

If you'd read all my posts, you'd know that I am far away from letting "one little thing" about this case bother me!

There was testimony that rotting pork smells almost identical to human decomposition. I knew that from before this case, and brought it up at the time of the first document dump. There were test results that showed NO levels of certain decomp chemicals that would have been in the car if a body had been left in there for days....and the chemicals that were found would be present if an animal (think pork) decomposed in the trunk. There was an absence of blow-flies, and believe me, that is very important. It would be almost impossible to erase the presence of blow-flies, and the fact that they weren't there lends reasonable doubt that the body was never in the trunk. The very fact that you admit that the death band is not 100% provable is reason for a juror to hold that testimony in question. I am not "handwaving" anything away. I am looking at both arguments, and I do understand how the jurors felt there was reasonable doubt. ESPECIALLY when combined with the fact that there was DNA of some unknown person found on the tape, but none of Caylee's.

I do think cadaver dogs are useful, but I do not think the "hit" of a cadaver dog rises to the same level of DNA or fingerprint evidence.

Also, you expected the tape to be on the bone? Do you realize that is impossible? The tape was on the skin. The skin is gone, and by that time the stickiness of the tape is gone with it. How would it stick on the bone? It was stuck to what was ON the bone, which is skin. If it was stuck to the bone, that would prove it was put there afterward. The way it was found is consistent with it being stuck on skin, which is what the experts testified. I think people make too many assumptions on their own and dont listen to experts. Why even have them on then? Why even have experts exist? Lets just all pretend we know where blowflies should be found and tape should be after 6 months of the elements. In defense of the blowflies, I know there was an expert saying they should be found, but he had almost no experience compared to the expert that says otherwise. Why would anyone choose to believe him over the other?

Are you kidding? Who in their right mind would expect the tape to be adhered to the skeleton? Not me, for sure. My point is that there was nothing to show us where the tape had been placed......the skin had decomposed, the tape was presumably loose. The way it was found COULD be indicative of where the tape was originally adhered, but thanks to Mr. Kronk, we will never be sure. When he poked that skull, kicked and lifted that bag, the tape could have moved.

I have my own feelings about this case. I strongly FEEL that something very bad happened to Caylee, and that ultimately Casey is to blame, whether through action or inaction. I also acknowledge that the baby could have died accidentally and Casey's level of disfunction is so off the charts that I can believe she would react very differently from most of us.

 

[mrye4709]

I don't think so. I think they were very successful at confusing the jury with the things they implied, outright lied about and insinuated. They had a plan for sure, and each and every one of the Anthony family were part and parcel of the plan, and they all played their parts to perfection. The jury was so confused they believed that George was on trial and they didn't even know who was responsible for Caylee. They were considering things that were said instead of considering the evidence that was before them. If the defense had remained silent, Casey would be facing some serious time...

I agree 100%. That was the defense. Just like a big bowl of goldfish. All flopping around so the jury couldn't tell which one they should go after. I hope JB gets his just deserts from JBP. What happened to his punishment for his slick tricks he pulled? :banghead:

 

[gardeniagrl]

I'm sorry but she is very obviously "happy" she is gettin out of the pokey next week, so there's no way in hades she would have sat in jail for 3 years for an accident ..... the evidence of her guilt is overwhelming to someone who can "reason"....apparently no one on this jury has those skills....so sorry little Caylee.

 

[February]

Jury didnt get it wrong.. Looks to me that they intentionally make their verdict wrong IMO..
Hello - She is not guilty of child abuse or neglect or endagerment?.....

 

[Boytwnmom]

shown or proven. Again, just like with SP, who knows where, when how he killed Laci and Connor. The jury didn't yet they were snart and dilligent enough to thoroughly examine the evidence and connect the dots. This jury could not be bothered and that is what I find most disturbing, that 12 people were all so self interested that they major concern was leaving. No one will ever convince me that they expended the requisite effort. It's not the system that's the prblem it's the human error element. I just find it difficult to believe that there was not one person who insisted on actually performing their duties as justice demanded.

One thing that bothers me i will admit is the "where". I wonder if it was in the car... She was supposedly in the area of the house when caylee died, but according to George not in the house. I still dont think that should be enough reasonable doubt, but that is one thing I could see how it could nag at someone.

 

[Solange82200]

Can you show me where anyone even admitted there was rotten pork in the trunk? If the only thing that smells like that is rotten pork, and there was none, you discount it. There was no rotten pork in there. None. Even the defense is not saying there is.

 

[Solange82200]

The fact that anyone has to sit here and come up with alternatives to so much (like the smell was rotting pork although none was found, etc.) is proof enough that she is guilty. IN order to believe in innocence, you have to start finding excuses to discount each piece, and believe they are all coincidences. You seem to be applying reasonable doubt to each separate piece of evidence, and I dont think that is the way it works. Like LDB said, you should look at the big picture. It is not a coincidence that all these things are present (rotten flesh smell, hair with death band, borrowing shover, backind car in garage).

 

[Chewy]

Once again TODDLERS DO NOT HAVE "ACCIDENTS" if a toddler dies accidentally it is because an adult was negligent.

I don't get why the jury and others are confused by this. Even if this WAS an accidental death SOMEONE is responsible for it. That someone is Casey Anthony.

 

[February]

I still want to know what Casey and George was doing before Caylee drowned? Baez started by saying Casey walked around the corner and saw George holding her. I need to turn Nancy off, because I'm still shock.

Here is what i think why they are blaming poor George...

George normally takes care of little Caylee whenever Cindy goes to work and Casey goes out to party and go everywhere... when George started working again, Caylee is left with her mother - but Casey forgot that George is about to start working that day so she left the house too and poor Caylee was left alone in the house....

 

[Solange82200]

Are you kidding? Who in their right mind would expect the tape to be adhered to the skeleton? Not me, for sure. My point is that there was nothing to show us where the tape had been placed......the skin had decomposed, the tape was presumably loose. The way it was found COULD be indicative of where the tape was originally adhered, but thanks to Mr. Kronk, we will never be sure. When he poked that skull, kicked and lifted that bag, the tape could have moved.

I am pretty sure that you said something about the tape not being on the skull. Maybe I misunderstood

 

[kgeaux]

I could see how some people could be offended, but I wasnt. I think she was making the point that the people saying she was a good mother only saw her with caylee for a couple hours at most, or not enough to really know. Also, about her comment about her fear about the big picture, she was obviously to me dead on, they did exactly what she was afraid they;d do. I thought her closing was great, but I could see how some people took it differently

I wasn't talking about the "pigs in a blanket" remark being made during closing arguments. I was talking about when Dr. Huntington testified for the defense. He testified about placing pig bodies into car trunks, watching what happened, and comparing his results to FBI test results done on the actual trunk. The prosecutor (Jeff A.) made the remark when he questioned Dr. Huntington....

I may be alone here, but I truly believe Jeff A did a poor, poor job, and that he let his sense of humor (if one can find humor in the case of a dead baby) interfere with his actions. The "pigs in a blanket" statement was so offensive to me because he was insinuating that since Caylee's little body was wrapped in a blanket, the blow-fly results would be different. Science tells us a blanket would not have been able to prevent blowflies from entering the trunk, or depositing eggs on the body, but it just really struck me as inappropriate on his part. The giggling behind his hand was way beyond unprofessional. I understand he has been a good prosecutor in the past, and I can respect that, but I am glad he has decided to retire. I don't think he did Caylee any favors.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM - Not that I've heard. In fact, they showed very little to no comprehension of the evidence. I think it's time for an IQ test before someone can serve on jury duty.

IMO

They basically disregarded the forensic evidence. There needs to be some kind of test of critical thinking ability imo. What's the point of having educated elite experts come in and give their testimony, if jurors choose to be ignorant of their opinions - in fact they seem to have based their decision on things that were not in evidence imo.

 

[Solange82200]

I wasn't talking about the "pigs in a blanket" remark being made during closing arguments. I was talking about when Dr. Huntington testified for the defense. He testified about placing pig bodies into car trunks, watching what happened, and comparing his results to FBI test results done on the actual trunk. The prosecutor (Jeff A.) made the remark when he questioned Dr. Huntington....

I may be alone here, but I truly believe Jeff A did a poor, poor job, and that he let his sense of humor (if one can find humor in the case of a dead baby) interfere with his actions. The "pigs in a blanket" statement was so offensive to me because he was insinuating that since Caylee's little body was wrapped in a blanket, the blow-fly results would be different. Science tells us a blanket would not have been able to prevent blowflies from entering the trunk, or depositing eggs on the body, but it just really struck me as inappropriate on his part. The giggling behind his hand was way beyond unprofessional. I understand he has been a good prosecutor in the past, and I can respect that, but I am glad he has decided to retire. I don't think he did Caylee any favors.

Oh i know, i just saw someone say they thought LDB's closing was cocky, I wasnt referring to the pigs thing. But Caylee's body was in bags. The other expert said that could be the cause of no blowflies, and he has more experience. I wonder why you choose to believe one over the other? Do you think the other expert for the state lied?

 

[mrye4709]

Yes, this jury had a very short attention span. Kind of like talking to kids, as long as you are talking about fantasy and make believe they could follow. Science and common sense went right over their heads. JB made a big impression with his colored markers and imaginary friends poster. The human race is in trouble people!!!

 

[kgeaux]

The fact that anyone has to sit here and come up with alternatives to so much (like the smell was rotting pork although none was found, etc.) is proof enough that she is guilty. IN order to believe in innocence, you have to start finding excuses to discount each piece, and believe they are all coincidences. You seem to be applying reasonable doubt to each separate piece of evidence, and I dont think that is the way it works. Like LDB said, you should look at the big picture. It is not a coincidence that all these things are present (rotten flesh smell, hair with death band, borrowing shover, backind car in garage).

It is KNOWN that rotting pork smells very, very similar to a decomposing human body. It has been known for years! Not new info! It was brought up in testimony in this trial, I did not grab this out of the air!

Also, your point "in order to believe innocence" is not compatible with USA justice system. Jurors should go into the trial presuming innocence and the evidence should prove guilt!

And, yes, I am applying doubt to much of the prosecution's evidence. We work here in USA on the "preponderance" of evidence---all of it, taken together. It is all the individual evidence together that makes the big picture, and if many components can be questioned then the big picture looks mighty fuzzy.

 

[Solange82200]

The giggling was unproffesional, and he has admitted that. But Jose;s closing was bordering on ridiculous. The whole outrage at the cops and everyone being the enemy of poor Casey. I havent found a single person, even of those who agree with the verdict, who think;s Jose's explanation of things was not farfetched. He made some good arguments in the closing, but when JA was laughing, it was when he was getting especially ridiculous. But I agree, JA should have not done it, and even he has said it

 

[liltexans]

Against my better judgment, I watched the interview with the alternate, Dean, on the Today Show. He stated that he couldn't and doesn't believe that Casey killed her daughter. It's obvious to me that Casey being a young, petite, and some say (not me) attractive woman worked enormously to her advantage. This particular guy looks really young too. He probably has never even heard of Andrea Yates or Susan Smith. He indicated that the jurors just couldn't believe that "good mother" Casey would have killer her child.

He also said he thought the prosecutors were on a "head hunt" (I'm going to assume he means "witch hunt") against Casey.

*sigh*

 

[Solange82200]

It is KNOWN that rotting pork smells very, very similar to a decomposing human body. It has been known for years! Not new info! It was brought up in testimony in this trial, I did not grab this out of the air!

Also, your point "in order to believe innocence" is not compatible with USA justice system. Jurors should go into the trial presuming innocence and the evidence should prove guilt!

And, yes, I am applying doubt to much of the prosecution's evidence. We work here in USA on the "preponderance" of evidence---all of it, taken together. It is all the individual evidence together that makes the big picture, and if many components can be questioned then the big picture looks mighty fuzzy.

I never said it was new or that you grabbed it out of the air, Im not sure why you say that. Could you explain why there was no rotten pork in the car, and why no one in the defense even claimed it? They said rotten pork could smell like death, but never said it was in there. I am not talking about going into trial with innocence, i am talking about the verdict. You are arguing strawmen, and arguing things I didnt say. Maybe you arent doing it purposely, but alot of what you are arguing about werent even statements i made, or meant to make.

I happen to be American just like you, so lets not make this about the USA or what you think the USA means to courts.

 

[Solange82200]

Against my better judgment, I watched the interview with the alternate, Dean, on the Today Show. He stated that he couldn't and doesn't believe that Casey killed her daughter. It's obvious to me that Casey being a young, petite, and some say (not me) attractive woman worked enormously to her advantage. This particular guy looks really young too. He probably has never even heard of Andrea Yates or Susan Smith. He indicated that the jurors just couldn't believe that "good mother" Casey would have killer her child.

He also said he thought the prosecutors were on a "head hunt" (I'm going to assume he means "witch hunt") against Casey.

*sigh*

Like a couple of people pointed out, high profile cases where you find a juror who hasnt formed an opinion or who is able to spend 2 months away from their job and family ends up with a weird cross-section of society. I think the jurors should be completely chosen at random, as long as they can say they will be fair, thats it. I dont want people who are out of touch with the real world or out of touch with reality

 

[magic-cat]

Nah. I realize none of this is worth arguing any more, but I don't think all of this was orchestrated with the A family. The defense was surprised at the verdict, just like the prosecution. They asked for a mistrial a dozen times because they didn't think they would win. What I heard from jurors is that they were waiting for a what, where, and when on the death of Caylee and never got it from the prosecution.

Oh yeah, it was so orchestrated with the Anthony's and so apparent. The defense was suprised it worked, and they were able to confuse the jury enough they did not even know what was evidence or lesser charges. They listened to Baez subliminally plant what he wanted in their brains, with NO basis in FACTS, and they fell for it. Also they asked for those millions of mistrials as part of their strategy to, to disrupt the proceedings and to get certain things on the record in case they needed to appeal, not because they thought they wouldn't win. That is just another defense ploy, and it worked out pretty daggone good for them this time I'd say. lol

What: Caylee Anthony is dead. Where-in the woods on Suburban Drive-a hop skip and a jump from where she lived her entire life. When-June 16th is the evident death date as she was never seen again.

How was the ONLY thing that was not answered explicitly but it was answered in general terms.

They had all the evidence that a reasonable man would have needed to connect the dots. They threw in the towel, without examining the multitudes of evidence, Juror 3 has already told us that, without going over and sorting what was true and what was lies and what were they left with. ALL the experts agreed that there was decomp in the car and yet they had trouble understanding their was a body that came from? Of course she would have cleaned the car, trying to get rid of the smell...she found out that ain't so easily done. Then her parents likely cleaned it too trying to protect her...

She was a skeleton with duct tape adhered into her hair in such a way that it held her face together. That means something to a reasonable thinking juror. Or it should, considering all the mountains and multitudes of other evidence that was presented. They threw in the towel and as someone who knows a whole lot more about it than they ever will? That disgusts me, for the little girl who deserved to have them examine the evidence in full...and not just "start" and quit.