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

[GracieLu]

George Anthony reported the gas cans stolen. He NEVER reported them recovered.

He never reported them recovered because it turns out his daughter had them (something he didn't suspect when he reported them stolen). Nothing "fishy" here especially when you look at past behavior of a daughter who steals from everybody under the sun and a mother who handles it herself.

Same reason he didn't call 911 at the tow yard. Cindy wanted to talk to ICA first. Talked himself out of foul play w/garbage bag being in the trunk (although he knew, just didn't want to face what he knew). Cindy was in contact w/Casey the whole time. They knew something was up but never in any family members mind did anyone suspect ICA killed Caylee not until ICA told CA and LE "I haven't seen Caylee in 31 days". We then hear a thruthful 911 and after that cover up mode, imo.

 

[GracieLu]

Perhaps GA felt guilty for the "ACCIDENT", didn't want CA to leave him since he just earned her trust back, and for his own sanity decided to drag KC in the mix too (knowing full and well she'd listen to anything he told her to do like she always has).

Do you have a links for this because I've followed this story since day 1 and i dont recall reading/hearing anything about ICA listening to anything GA told her to do? As a matter of fact, I think It's just the opposite. Tracy (LP's worker who was ICA's babysitter) states the morning after ICA came home GA and ICA had a big blowup "WHERE IS MY GRANDDAUGHTER." Also, GA's friend (former FBI possibly, i can't remember exactly) states the same thing, GA DEMANDING TO KNOW WHERE HIS GRANDDAUGHTER WAS! ICA made a statement to Tracy "He always treats me like a cop, not a daughter" which I take as meaning he never cared about her lies or stories, he demanded the truth (unlike Cindy who probably after after lots of yelling and name calling eventually came around and treated her like the innocent princess she was BARF!)

And, according to JB OS, Caylee had drowned in the morning, so when KC walked out of the house that afternoon, there was no need for anyone to watch her, she was already gone.

According to phone records, texts, etc... ICA was on the phone all morning and downloading pics of Fusion. Where during this timeframe did this cover up take place? Are you saying in a matter of minutes Caylee drown, GA found her, handed her to ICA where she cried and cried (according to JB) but within minutes handed her back to GA and ran back in the house to download pictures?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I think the major problem with the whole situation in regards to the KC case, trial and verdict is that the media put the guilty goggles on the very first day this was reported, and filtered all the media releases through these guilty goggles. This made it very difficult for the court of public opinion to look at this case in the way the jury was required to look at this case.

Just for example, the duct tape. With the guilty goggles on it is very easy to assume KC did exactly what JA said she did. Without listening to any cross examination of the duct tape, which for nearly three years we did not hear, the duct tape alone is enough to convict KC in the court of public opinion. It is logical, and common sense tells you that is the only thing that could be true.

WIthout the guilty goggles on, the jury listened to JA's explanation of the possibility of what transpired with the duct tape, along with a photoshopped demonstration, and photos, pointing out that using logic and common sense the only possibility for the duct tape being where it was found is that KC put it on Caylee's mouth and nose. Then JB did his cross examination. The jury saw pictures we did not see. JB explained the other side of the coin. JB's explanation muddied the waters, and suddenly using logic and common sense, the jury realized that the only logical possibility that JA pointed out, was NOT the only logical possibility at all. There were other logical, common sense possibilities. Did these other possibilities prove KC was not guilty, NO, but they did prove that the state was incorrect in the assumption that the only logical common sense possibility was that KC was guilty.

This same thing happened with the air sample, the smell of death, the computer searches, etc. The jury saw everything the state had to offer without the guilty goggles on. They heard everything the dt had to offer in rebuttal of the states case. The jury did use logic, and common sense, and the dt was successful in raising enough reasonable doubt, that the only conclusion the jury could come to was not guilty. It may not be the verdict we wanted, or expected, but it was the right decision based on the unfiltered evidence in this case.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Chili Fries]

Note - only quoted pertinent part.

Laci Peterson last seen at home. Only one other person lived in that home, her husband Scott.

Caylee Anthony, last seen at home. Three liars, George, Cindy and Casey Anthony all lived there.

The jury had to believe George and Cindy to believe Casey was the last one with Caylee.

George and Cindy both were too specific in their memories when it came to Casey/Caylee. George remembered the "exact" time Caylee left the house. He did not know that would be the last time he saw his Granddaughter yet he remembered the exact time, exactly what she was wearing.

Do you remember the exact time a loved one left your house to go to work or school or just left? Today, yesterday, the day before...the exact time. Or would your remember they left around "1 pm."

Do you remember the specific details and date of every conversation you had with someone you talk to every day? Can you remember all the details of a phone conversation from a month ago?

George and Cindy both claim they had no idea they would NEVER see Caylee again. But they remember EVERYTHING about Casey/Caylee for those 31 days.

IMO, they only have memory problems when it comes to themselves.

This can't be emphasized enough. We know George's testimony about the last time he saw Caylee contradicted his interview with the FBI. And he's a horrible liar, it was painfully obvious he was telling a story about the 16th, not really remembering it. Really hard to overstate how George's testimony sunk the defense. His lying and combativeness on the stand, and the fact that, as ex-LE, he didn't immediately call 911 about the death smell in the trunk were the keys to this trial. I don't agree with the verdict but I don't have any problem understanding it because it all starts with George. I thought JB was a clown but it turned out that him implicating George was a stroke of genius.

 

[beccalecca1]

You are. It was holding the mandible in place. One piece of tape wouldn't do it.

Wait a minute... how could the duct tape be holding the mandible in place if it wasn't even attached to the face? That is one thing I know for sure. It was only attached to the hair.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I think the major problem with the whole situation in regards to the KC case, trial and verdict is that the media put the guilty goggles on the very first day this was reported, and filtered all the media releases through these guilty goggles. This made it very difficult for the court of public opinion to look at this case in the way the jury was required to look at this case.

Just for example, the duct tape. With the guilty goggles on it is very easy to assume KC did exactly what JA said she did. Without listening to any cross examination of the duct tape, which for nearly three years we did not hear, the duct tape alone is enough to convict KC in the court of public opinion. It is logical, and common sense tells you that is the only thing that could be true.

WIthout the guilty goggles on, the jury listened to JA's explanation of the possibility of what transpired with the duct tape, along with a photoshopped demonstration, and photos, pointing out that using logic and common sense the only possibility for the duct tape being where it was found is that KC put it on Caylee's mouth and nose. Then JB did his cross examination. The jury saw pictures we did not see. JB explained the other side of the coin. JB's explanation muddied the waters, and suddenly using logic and common sense, the jury realized that the only logical possibility that JA pointed out, was NOT the only logical possibility at all. There were other logical, common sense possibilities. Did these other possibilities prove KC was not guilty, NO, but they did prove that the state was incorrect in the assumption that the only logical common sense possibility was that KC was guilty.

This same thing happened with the air sample, the smell of death, the computer searches, etc. The jury saw everything the state had to offer without the guilty goggles on. They heard everything the dt had to offer in rebuttal of the states case. The jury did use logic, and common sense, and the dt was successful in raising enough reasonable doubt, that the only conclusion the jury could come to was not guilty. It may not be the verdict we wanted, or expected, but it was the right decision based on the unfiltered evidence in this case.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

This is a great explanation, and neatly summarizes my perception of the case. It's not necessarily that I believed wholeheartedly any of the defense's theories, but that those theories introduced doubt in to the case. The state didn't do enough to overcome those doubts for me. Some of the defense's explanations were logical, and some were not, but overall, there was enough there from the defense to introduce doubt in my mind.

The prosecution's theory of the case was that this was premeditated. This colored everything - their statements, the way they introduced evidence, even what they chose to address. From my personal perspective, I didn't see enough to convince me of premeditation. Had their theory or theme of the case been negligence instead, that may have tipped the scale for me. It could have changed how they addressed the evidence, and overcome some of those doubts in my mind. There just wasn't enough for me to find premeditation, or even definitive murder, when looking at the evidence without my "guilty goggles."

 

[logicalgirl]

None of what you posted was FACT but how you understood and determined the scientific evidence. The jury was instructed to make their own determinations.

The duct tape was NOT attached to any part of the skull when it was found. Listen to the testimony. Better yet, Juror #11 described both tape and positioning last night on Greta.

One piece was attached to the hair mat. The end of that piece of tape landed close to the nose/mouth area but was not attached. The other two pieces had been moved away from the body. It is speculation that the tape was attached.

Even JA stated over and over that three pieces of duct tape were on her face. Two of those three pieces had been moved away from the body. His statement of three pieces was clearly speculation.

"On December 11, Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz separated a light colored laundry bag from two black garbage bags with yellow pullties. The two black bags were torn imultiple places and intermingled, and were partially within the laundry bag. The laundry bag contained a rigid metal rim, as seen on x-ray, around the opening. The black bags were positioned on top of the metal rim while a fold of the laundry bag was visible overlaying the top of the garbage bags. An unfused tibial diaphysis was found directly on top of the mass consisting of the laundry bag and jumbled blackbags. A number of human bones were located mixed with the leaf debris from within the bags.

In addition,although the black bags were tom, two hand bones were removed directly from the black bags. In terms ofthe bones recovered from the mass ofbags, a right scapula, five finger bones, a proximal humeral epiphysis, a primary ossification center, and a proximal tibial epiphysis were recovered. In addition, two small ossification centers were located on December 15 after sorting through the dried debris.

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collectionbagbytearingthecomersofthebagtoexposetheskull. Ahairmatwasnoted on the base ofthe skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair ofthe skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base ofthe cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary dentition that was approximately between 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion: Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull."

 

[goldenlover]

and being a human being in a social environment. no matter what you decide your friends, family and acquaintances will want an explanation. no one lives in a vacuum. decisions and actions have consequences so make decisions you can back up with facts and decisions you can defend.

I think the jurors are coming out and giving their explanatin. The problem is, they are being called names and being threatened. They are defending their decision and backing it up with facts.

Thankfully there are still people that can serve on a jury and come to a decision based on logic and evidence and not on their emotions, the public's opinion or the percieved consequences.

 

[goldenlover]

"On December 11, Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz separated a light colored laundry bag from two black garbage bags with yellow pullties. The two black bags were torn imultiple places and intermingled, and were partially within the laundry bag. The laundry bag contained a rigid metal rim, as seen on x-ray, around the opening. The black bags were positioned on top of the metal rim while a fold of the laundry bag was visible overlaying the top of the garbage bags. An unfused tibial diaphysis was found directly on top of the mass consisting of the laundry bag and jumbled blackbags. A number of human bones were located mixed with the leaf debris from within the bags.

In addition,although the black bags were tom, two hand bones were removed directly from the black bags. In terms ofthe bones recovered from the mass ofbags, a right scapula, five finger bones, a proximal humeral epiphysis, a primary ossification center, and a proximal tibial epiphysis were recovered. In addition, two small ossification centers were located on December 15 after sorting through the dried debris.

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collectionbagbytearingthecomersofthebagtoexposetheskull. Ahairmatwasnoted on the base ofthe skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair ofthe skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base ofthe cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary dentition that was approximately between 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion: Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull."

The skull was moved by RK...we do not know what position the mandible was in when it was found by the meter reader. How do we know he did not move it with his meter reader stick (as he admitted) and then put it back into position as he was afraid he may have tampered with evidence. We do not know that.

 

[beccalecca1]

Same reason he didn't call 911 at the tow yard. Cindy wanted to talk to ICA first. Talked himself out of foul play w/garbage bag being in the trunk (although he knew, just didn't want to face what he knew).

Snipped


I'm having a hard time agreeing with the "he just didn't want to face it" excuse. If I smelled something that I thought was human decomposition after picking up my daughter's car from a tow yard, and I haven't seen my beloved granddaughter for a month; who I previously saw every single day.... I wouldn't go into denial mode. Especially if I was a detective in the past. I believe I would know what that meant and I would do everything in my power to make sure my daughter and granddaughter are alright.

I'm just not buying the denial. Especially from someone who reports his gas cans stolen knowing that his daughter has taken gas from them in the past. I don't care if there were crimes in the neighborhood... none of the other sheds had locks broken open, only the one with the cans. That would equate to me that it was someone who knew where I stored my gas cans (and I'm not a detective). And, then not to call the LE back to report I found the "perp" to not raise concern in the neighborhood. Hmmm.... I'm just not buying it.

 

[kgeaux]

Okay, now Im confused... the title of this thread is "for those of you who agree with this verdict, please help me understand." The consensus, not by all but by most, who agree w/this verdict seem to be doing so by speculation (most of what was said in JB's opening statement) about GA. Are you saying the jury came back w/not guilty because of speculation about GA? I would hope they came to their decision by the facts presented throughout the trial (not by sleazy innuendo w/nothing to back it up). *Although imo I do not believe the examined the evidence and Caylee deserved much more than 10 hours!*
IMO of course!

I would have agreed that there was reasonable doubt in this case. But I do not base that on anything that was said about, to or by George.

oh no, no, no...
Does that mean what I think it does?

Do you think it means that Myspace was visited 84 times, but there was only ONE search for chloroform? If so, then Yes, it means what you think!

But it is speculation. Even the SA kept saying it was over the mouth and nose and it was NOT. Testimony laid out how it was found attached to ONE side in the hair and draping toward the mouth but not attached. Same speculation as to the computer searches. SA harped that there was 84 searches even AFTER it was proven that it was ONE. Alot of people are upset at the jury and SPECULATING that they didn't deliberate and only listened to the DT OS. But, they did listen to testimony and concluded that the SA theory of such evidence was refuted by the defense and usually done so by FBI and state witnesses which made the SA appear to be hiding something. And that the SA STAR witness GA was not trustworthy on the stand because of HIS actions on the stand. JMO

Totally agree.

 

[beccalecca1]

According to phone records, texts, etc... ICA was on the phone all morning and downloading pics of Fusion. Where during this timeframe did this cover up take place? Are you saying in a matter of minutes Caylee drown, GA found her, handed her to ICA where she cried and cried (according to JB) but within minutes handed her back to GA and ran back in the house to download pictures?

According to phone records I saw posted on WS, there was a gap of inactivity on the phone from 8:46 to 11:47.

 

[logicalgirl]

The skull was moved by RK...we do not know what position the mandible was in when it was found by the meter reader. How do we know he did not move it with his meter reader stick (as he admitted) and then put it back into position as he was afraid he may have tampered with evidence. We do not know that.

"The calvarium is totally exposed and there is only a very small amount of adherent soil and leaf litter. No soft tissue remains. Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium in the sagittal and coronal planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar and lower posterior skull, including inferior portions of the mandible. Plant roots have grown into and over the surface of the hair mat. Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior mandible and maxilla are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating. The
tape is removed and allowed to dry. The matted hair is removed from the skull. Plant roots permeate the mat and there are multiple small roughly circular, irregular defects in the mat, suggestive of insect predation artifact. The hair is permitted to dry pending additional examination. Preliminary examination of the skull reveals no evidence of trauma."

 

[gngr~snap]

I would have agreed that there was reasonable doubt in this case. But I do not base that on anything that was said about, to or by George.



Do you think it means that Myspace was visited 84 times, but there was only ONE search for chloroform? If so, then Yes, it means what you think!



Totally agree.

Interesting. I was thinking maybe the site was accessed from "history" or tagged as a "favorite" -not "bookmarked" per say.
A "hit" would be for instance a blog page (how many times it was viewed )?
Am I understanding it correctly?

ETA: The amount of traffic coming into the sever as opposed to being accessed by the user?

 

[Boytwnmom]

We know what the evidence was and don't need Juror #11 to better inform us. Those who want to stand with this jury are welcome to do so. But I have never found ignorance to be bliss. It's unfortunate the Foreman could not correctly interpret the difference between what he wanted to hear and what the law requires the state to show or the difference between evidence and attorney statements which aren't evidence or witness testimony that they were instructed to disregard. IMO bolstering this jury does no one any favors. This lack of diligence and attention can cut both ways. Next time an innocent person may be caught up in the states fantasy tale and the jury may not like the defense witnesses who seem "shady" but really like the jovial prosecutor and their steller witnesses. A jury's failure to follow the rules can cut both ways.

Here's the difference and is my last comment in this thread. Most of us here, including me, have been reading the depos and watching the evidence hearings long before these people testified in court. I know what those documents said, and what they could testify to. The reason the SA changed the charges to a death penalty charge was partly because of the tape.
There is never a reason to have duct tape on the face of a child or anyone else for that matter. Speculation about the tape? Uh huh. Wow.

 

[Leomoon80]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20078743-504083.html?tag=strip

CBS) - Juror No. 12 in the Casey Anthony trial has left her job and went into hiding fearing that her co-workers "want her head on a platter" after she and the 11 other jurors acquitted Anthony of first-degree murder in the death of her daughter Caylee, says a report.
Her husband said before leaving she told him "I'd rather go to jail than sit on a jury like this again," reports MSNBC.

Juror No. 12, a red-haired woman in her 60s, told the court she worked at a Publix Grocery when she was questioned as a potential juror.

 

[AnaTeresa]

We know what the evidence was and don't need Juror #11 to better inform us. Those who want to stand with this jury are welcome to do so. But I have never found ignorance to be bliss. It's unfortunate the Foreman could not correctly interpret the difference between what he wanted to hear and what the law requires the state to show or the difference between evidence and attorney statements which aren't evidence or witness testimony that they were instructed to disregard. IMO bolstering this jury does no one any favors. This lack of diligence and attention can cut both ways. Next time an innocent person may be caught up in the states fantasy tale and the jury may not like the defense witnesses who seem "shady" but really like the jovial prosecutor and their steller witnesses. A jury's failure to follow the rules can cut both ways.

I'm sorry, but I find it very demeaning to say that those of us who agree with the jury are "ignorant." There have been quite a few people on this thread who have thoughtfully articulated their reasoning for concluding the same as the jury in this case. Was it because that was "what they wanted to hear"? I went into this case - and still feel! - that Casey was guilty. But feeling she is guilty is not the same as proving it. I really do not think you should say that someone did not correctly interpret the evidence, simply because they interpreted in a different way than you did.

Every time the jury is called ignorant for finding not guilty, by extension, that is also calling us posters who agree with the verdict ignorant. It's very tiresome to hear the jury belittled for returning a verdict so quickly, when they would have been applauded had the verdict been guilty.

 

[cmsg2002]

The skull was moved by RK...we do not know what position the mandible was in when it was found by the meter reader. How do we know he did not move it with his meter reader stick (as he admitted) and then put it back into position as he was afraid he may have tampered with evidence. We do not know that.

again, that is assuming and/or speculating on something that was not in evidence, so it should not have been considered in their deliberations whatsoever. But even if one were to believe that this could have or did occur....wouldn't the fact that the mandible was still in place strengthen the evidence that the tape was placed on the face?

 

[MissJames]

Wait a minute... how could the duct tape be holding the mandible in place if it wasn't even attached to the face? That is one thing I know for sure. It was only attached to the hair.

Because the face that the tape was attached to decomposed beneath it .Then ts Faye came through .

You did know Caylee had no face left when she was found,right?

The duct tape went across the skull from one side to the other ,over the area that the face used to be ,each end attached to her hair.

Hideous,isn't it? Juror #2 said he can't get those pictures out of his head.He also said he doesn't know how anyone could do that to a child.

 

[MaryAnn]

This can't be emphasized enough. We know George's testimony about the last time he saw Caylee contradicted his interview with the FBI. And he's a horrible liar, it was painfully obvious he was telling a story about the 16th, not really remembering it. Really hard to overstate how George's testimony sunk the defense. His lying and combativeness on the stand, and the fact that, as ex-LE, he didn't immediately call 911 about the death smell in the trunk were the keys to this trial. I don't agree with the verdict but I don't have any problem understanding it because it all starts with George. I thought JB was a clown but it turned out that him implicating George was a stroke of genius.

I wouldn't call blatantly lieing a stroke of genius. I don't give JB all the credit he thinks he deserves. I think if those Jurors weren't sequestered they would have found her Guilty. They all just wanted to go home and a Guilty plea would have made them stay another 2 weeks. It was their chance to run and they chose running. I still think JB is a lieing clown. I have no respect for him at all. What about Lee? Accusing this young Man of being a pervert, haveing sex with his Sister? disgusting defense!! I guess he went with the SHOCK defense and he got lucky! He ain't no genius that's for sure sure :banghead: