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

[Smelly Squirrel]

There was a search for "shovel", along with "death", chloroform", how to make chloroform, neck breaking, ruptured spleen, hand to hand combat, etc. Yes, a plain old search for shovel is strange. But all of these searches together lead me to believe that KC had murder on her mind.

I've seen a page on making chloroform that recommends using a shovel to mix ingredients.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Additionally, anyone who needs to search for shovel to bury a dead body.....:banghead:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The Shovel

Maybe this is why KC looked up shovel?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This information could be the tip of an iceberg. If LDB knew the 84 times was incorrect, yet hammered the point home 5 times during her crossexamination of CA, the media just might do some investigating on their own, and look into anything else that looks to be a bit hinky.

This is garbage. You don't know that she knew. She questioned CA the same day but before Stenger testified on the discrepancy.

As far as the rest of your post,

Should the media follow the defenses lead and look online as to questions raised by posters on a multitude of sites in regards to the actions of the state, well, they can find there were a lot of questions about a lot of things in this case.

Yeah, because bloggers are such a good source.

There were questions raised about
JJ, and LB in regards to TES documents and the illegal recording made by JJ. What really happened with the files the day JB and CM were being filmed by the press while looking at the TES documents?

RK gave several interviews and depos, the only thing consistant about these was the fact that his statements were inconsistant. The media may follow up with RK and maybe pursue the Cain angle as well, since Cain was the officer who responded to the stolen gas cans GA reported, and responded to the report of stuffed animals in a garbage in the vicinity of area A.

When the prosecution reinstated the DP in this case, it happened shortly before LL was up for re-election. The nosey media may find the possible political angle interesting.

Will the media try to garner more information in regards to the witness Rodriguez? The DOD said if he testified he would be fired. Is there any more to this story?

While AH was on the stand, she said "can I just say something?" JA objected instantly and HHJP called a sidebar. The media may look up AH and ask her what was the something she wanted to say. Did it have anything to do which the bad checks?

The media may also do some research on how often felony charges during a DP investigation and then tried BEFORE the DP trial has even started? Although these felonies were not brought into play in the DP trial, the question of how often in the past has this occurred remains.

The cadaver dog alerts on one day and failure to alert in same area following day may cause some investigation. A famous dog handler not that long ago was caught planting evidence, so there is precedence in the dog handling world.
The shockingly high amounts of chloroform reported. Some investigative reporters may find this an area of extreme interest.

We all heard JB try to bring in whether or not KC's Miranda rights had been violated, and HHJP shot that down in a hurry. Some hard research by investigative reporters may shed some interesting light on this subject.
While JB was talking to KC in the jailhouse, he reported hearing odd clicking sounds. Nothing came from this at the time, but with RK and DC snooping around in or near Area A, some reporters may wonder if it was RK's curiousity or his girlfriends gossip, and if DC had psychic help or help from a nonsupernatural source?

There is a mountain of information released via the Sunshine Law. Prior to the verdict, the media only explored the potentially incriminating evidence because the tot mob was screaming for KC to be put in jail for life without parole, or given a fatal injection. With a verdict of not guilty, the media may revisit the mountain, and they may find information that would be very interesting.

Every single item in the above paragraphs may amount to absolutely nothing. If there is anything questionable about anything in the above paragraphs, the media may very well pursue it and find the answers.

These are just a few of a multitude of questions that the media may decide to investigate. There were a large number of questions posted on this site alone that were never really addressed or looked into because the answers may have helped the defense, and since nearly everyone here is convinced she is guilty, it would be a waste of time to look into anything that did not help prove guilt. The absolute scariest part of not looking at both sides of the coin, and not looking for the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is that any one of us could be accused of a crime, and the state may use evidence against us that is 84 times worse than it should be. LOL ok maybe not 84 times worse, but they may use evidence against us that they know is false, and that is a violation of our civil rights.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I don't agree with anything you said or insinuated, but maybe I need a tinfoil hat to get it.

It's highly ironic that the same people who are sure KC is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are on the other hand sure without almost any doubt that everyone else involved the case (except the DT) is guilty of some wrongdoing.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

No defendant ever has to take the stand in her own defense. The prosecution has the burden of proof and it's up to them to prove to the jury that the defendant is guilty. It's a very basic right of any defendant to not testify, and the jury received a specific instruction which explains that her not testifying can not be considered, period.

It's a legal right to not testify, but that doesn't mean we can't make conclusions about it anyway. The jurors can't in their decision, but I can, we all can.

 

[Littleone48]

This is garbage. You don't know that she knew. She questioned CA the same day but before Stenger testified on the discrepancy. As far as the rest of your post,



I don't agree with anything you said or insinuated, but maybe I need a tinfoil hat to get it.

It's highly ironic that the same people who are sure KC is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are on the other hand sure without almost any doubt that everyone else involved the case (except the DT) is guilty of some wrongdoing.

From the link http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp

(corrected date from Jun 16-19 to) JUN 23-26, 2011 - I advised the State Attorney of the problem(s) and liased with her and the OCSD officer. During the next 3 days, I completely retooled the code in CacheBack and successfully matched the proper 9,075 records. An independent tool called "dork.exe" developed by the Mozilla developers corroborated my results. I also used EnCase Version 6 keyword search on the new record marker (a square open bracket) and verified the same results. CacheBack 3.7.11 was immediately released and I prepared an assortment of published results (for OCSD and the State prosecutor) in various file formats to make it easy to disclose and review.

This information was provided to the prosecution and to the OCSD in advance of the State's rebuttal, and the OCSD officer's second appearance (for the State). I even offered to fly down there overnight at my own expense to set the record straight and explain the discrepancy. Since the fate of woman's life could lay in this critical piece of information, I did everything in my power to remedy the situation, or at least mitigate the issue - once I became aware of it.

They Knew

 

[MarthaM]

It's highly ironic that the same people who are sure KC is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are on the other hand sure without almost any doubt that everyone else involved the case (except the DT) is guilty of some wrongdoing.

I don't think that's ironic because that's not what I see going on here. I see a lot of people wondering just what the prosecution did here, and I'm seeing the word 'if' a lot. Speaking only for myself, IF the prosecution did something they shouldn't have here then they'll have to bear the consequences. But it's a breaking story, and I want to get it all sorted out and then see where I stand.

It's a legal right to not testify, but that doesn't mean we can't make conclusions about it anyway. The jurors can't in their decision, but I can, we all can.

Sure. But that's not something I'm willing to do, especially since it's not the slightest bit unusual for a defendant not to take the stand. There are all kinds of reasons why some would and some wouldn't, but it doesn't tell me a thing about their guilt or innocence. It tells me more about trial strategy.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Oh, I am sure he thought his conviction of Casey Anthony would probably get him his own show and a cushy legal analyst job forever. He would have been the equivalent of the Navy Seal who took out Bin Laden. Thank goodness the jury saw through the arrogant slam drunk dramatics.

jmo

You're "sure"???? Based on what evidence exactly, other than your mere unfounded opinion?

Let me get this straight. If Ashton were on trial for that charge you made, you would have convicted him, since you are "sure" you know his inner thoughts. Yet, there wasn't enough evidence for you to convict KC.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't think that's ironic because that's not what I see going on here. I see a lot of people wondering just what the prosecution did here, and I'm seeing the word 'if' a lot. Speaking only for myself, IF the prosecution did something they shouldn't have here then they'll have to bear the consequences. But it's a breaking story, and I want to get it all sorted out and then see where I stand.

I just quoted someone who said they were "sure."

Sure. But that's not something I'm willing to do, especially since it's not the slightest bit unusual for a defendant not to take the stand. There are all kinds of reasons why some would and some wouldn't, but it doesn't tell me a thing about their guilt or innocence. It tells me more about trial strategy.

I believe it tells you about guilt. How to interpret the decision depends on the specific case. Sometimes, it doesn't show anything, but sometimes it does. In this case, I think it does. It was indeed about strategy, because they knew KC is a horrible liar and that she wouldn't have been able to pull off any "accident" story.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

This is garbage. You don't know that she knew. She questioned CA the same day but before Stenger testified on the discrepancy.

As far as the rest of your post,



I don't agree with anything you said or insinuated, but maybe I need a tinfoil hat to get it.

It's highly ironic that the same people who are sure KC is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are on the other hand sure without almost any doubt that everyone else involved the case (except the DT) is guilty of some wrongdoing.

The remark about the tinfoil hat is pretty funny. It did make me laugh.

You may disagree with everything I said, since you have every right to do so, and I do you respect your opinion, and we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Nonetheless, I do believe the media is fickle, and I do believe they will investigate many aspects of the KC case. What they may find, well, who knows.

I cannot speak for anyone other than myself in regards to who, if anyone is guilty of wrongdoing. Personally, I believe almost everyone, both defense and prosecution acted ethically and professionally. I say ALMOST because I have reservations about a select few. I have reservations about a select few because I found a few things about this case to be a little off. Just because I don't take every word the media has said about this case, and every word that HHJP and the prosecution has said about this case as honest to goodness gospel and the whole truth and nothing but the truth, does not mean I have a penchant for wearing tinfoil as an accessory.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

From the link http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp

(corrected date from Jun 16-19 to) JUN 23-26, 2011 - I advised the State Attorney of the problem(s) and liased with her and the OCSD officer.

Right, which would have been AFTER Burdick questioned CA, as I said.

And?

During the next 3 days, I completely retooled the code in CacheBack and successfully matched the proper 9,075 records. An independent tool called "dork.exe" developed by the Mozilla developers corroborated my results. I also used EnCase Version 6 keyword search on the new record marker (a square open bracket) and verified the same results. CacheBack 3.7.11 was immediately released and I prepared an assortment of published results (for OCSD and the State prosecutor) in various file formats to make it easy to disclose and review.

This information was provided to the prosecution and to the OCSD in advance of the State's rebuttal, and the OCSD officer's second appearance (for the State). I even offered to fly down there overnight at my own expense to set the record straight and explain the discrepancy. Since the fate of woman's life could lay in this critical piece of information, I did everything in my power to remedy the situation, or at least mitigate the issue - once I became aware of it.

They Knew

If you take this guy's word for it, they knew something (after CA and Stenger testified). But, you haven't heard the prosecution's side of the story.

Here's another person who has acquitted KC with no qualms, but yet is sure that someone else is guilty of something based on scant evidence.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Let me add that I'm not sayng the prosecution is innocent of any charges. I'm saying nothing has been proven yet because we don't have all the evidence. If and when enough evidence is revealed, and it's not in doubt they violated any ethics, then I hope they are sanctioned somehow.

Also needs to be said that whatever the prosecution did has no bearing on KC's guilt or innocence.

 

[natsound]

I don't think she will ever admit any responsibility to her parents, not even of an accident...as far as remorse, etc...I can't get inside her head. It makes no sense how she acted afterward no matter how Caylee died, IMO.

IMO, it makes sense because she wanted Caylee out of her life, and she felt free once the deed was done.

 

[natsound]

They led me to believe that somebody was playing some sort of computer/playstation/x-box game and looking for ways to kill their opponent, frankly.

I'm not quite sure if you're serious, but on the chance that you are, I didn't hear the defense mention this possibility.

 

[MarthaM]

I'm not quite sure if you're serious, but on the chance that you are, I didn't hear the defense mention this possibility.

Serious about what? When I look at those words, that's what they first brought to mind for me. I wasn't talking about what the defense actually brought up in the trial, just talking about those words being searched for.

 

[MarthaM]

Let me add that I'm not sayng the prosecution is innocent of any charges. I'm saying nothing has been proven yet because we don't have all the evidence. If and when enough evidence is revealed, and it's not in doubt they violated any ethics, then I hope they are sanctioned somehow.

And I think that's what most people are saying here and on the other thread.

I also think that the actions of the attorneys in trials do have a bigger effect and impact more than just that one trial. So whether the specific defendant was found guilty or not in a trial when ethical questions arise isn't really all that's at stake. It's the process overall.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

A fantastic article on the important role of a grand jury in preventing a mistake by comparing the Ramsey and Anthony cases. Cheers.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-grand-jury-prevented-a-mistake-2011-7

 

[MissJames]

Serious about what? When I look at those words, that's what they first brought to mind for me. I wasn't talking about what the defense actually brought up in the trial, just talking about those words being searched for.

Casey was telling Amy she would soon have the house and that Amy could move in with her. Casey was so convincing that Amy had some photo equipment sent to the Anthony's address because she thought she would be living there. Cindy questioned Casey about it and Casey made up yet another lie as to why Amy had a package sent to their home.

How do you explain what Casey was doing? Why would she tell her friend she would have the house to herself?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

A fantastic article on the important role of a grand jury in preventing a mistake by comparing the Ramsey and Anthony cases. Cheers.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-grand-jury-prevented-a-mistake-2011-7

Oh brother, those cases aren't the least comparable. Patricia never denied her daughter was missing, for instance.

(One thing they did have in common was the body was found with duct tape on the mouth, and Ramsey did not die of an accident.)

An Orange County, Fla., grand jury was not so cautious or so helpful in the Anthony case. Prosecutors there won a first-degree murder indictment, carrying a potential death penalty, despite not knowing where the child was killed, or when, or how. They thought they knew by whom, but their main proof was Casey Anthony’s suspect behavior after her daughter went missing. The forensic evidence was both scant and scientifically unproven, the mode and manner of death not established. The prosecution’s hypothesis that Anthony killed her daughter because she no longer wanted to be burdened with motherhood seems to have had as much foundation as the long-ago theory that Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenét because her daughter had wet the bed.

This is all either false or debatable.

 

[MarthaM]

Casey was telling Amy she would soon have the house and that Amy could move in with her. Casey was so convincing that Amy had some photo equipment sent to the Anthony's address because she thought she would be living there. Cindy questioned Casey about it and Casey made up yet another lie as to why Amy had a package sent to their home.

How do you explain what Casey was doing? Why would she tell her friend she would have the house to herself?

Why are you asking me that in response to my post on a different subject (computer searches)? I have no idea why you would post a question like that to me in response to anything I've said here.

 

[MarthaM]

A fantastic article on the important role of a grand jury in preventing a mistake by comparing the Ramsey and Anthony cases. Cheers.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-grand-jury-prevented-a-mistake-2011-7

Excellent.