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

[logicalgirl]

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

He actually reported that his shed was broken into because there had been other break-ins in the neighbourhood. He also reported that the only thing missing were his two gas cans.

 

[logicalgirl]

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:

Serving on a jury is providing a service to support freedoms of the American way of life. I guess the people in the armed forces fighting overseas to protect the American freedoms also finish off their service to their country quickly so they can hurry home in 6 or 7 weeks too, eh?

 

[RANCH]

He actually reported that his shed was broken into because there had been other break-ins in the neighbourhood. He also reported that the only thing missing were his two gas cans.

Come on logicalgirl. If you are to understand this verdict, small details like a break in need to be ignored.I'm having a hard time understanding this verdict because apparently the defense angle is the only one considered.I would like someone to take multiple defense experts cross examination testimony and use it to show reasonable doubt.

 

[GracieLu]

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.

Yes, GA lied, and testimony may have been contradicted, but imo its was all to help his daughter (not save himself). His lying and combativeness on the stand is understandable too imo, although from what Ive been reading some think its not that unusual to be combative while being accused of molesting ones daughter and throwing your granddaughter away like trash (hmmm, learn something new everyday i guess). The tow yard guy didn't immediately call 911 either so Im assuming most think he was involved as well (maybe he knew RK and had car problems too, he could have also helped put the mandible back on the skull too i guess).

I wouldn't call JB "genius." He didn't save ICA's life, GA did! I live near Chicago (not too far away from orlando but far enough) and EVERYBODY i talk to regarding this case thinks JB, anybody involved with him, and CM are SLEAZY! This will be CM's crowning case, the one he'll be remembered by, and from what Im hearing when I mention JB and CM is "oh ya, those SLEAZY lawyers! (I dont think I would want to be remembered like that) Wow, family must be so proud of them, lol!

 

[Schu7]

He actually reported that his shed was broken into because there had been other break-ins in the neighbourhood. He also reported that the only thing missing were his two gas cans.

Now to connect the dots here. Someone breaks into your shed and takes 2 gas can of no value. But leaves all items of value. That does not happen in my universe. People break in to steal items of value. There is no possible way that statement can be true.

Now there was break-ins around the neighborhood. I got to ask here, how would Gorge know that? All the interviewed neighbours said the same thing. The Anthony's talked to no one. They were self isolated from the neighbours. And small time break-ins in a neighborhood do not make the news. Or newspapers. So that statement clearly is a lie.

 

[RANCH]

Now to connect the dots here. Someone breaks into your shed and takes 2 gas can of no value. But leaves all items of value. That does not happen in my universe. People break in to steal items of value. There is no possible way that statement can be true.

Now there was break-ins around the neighborhood. I got to ask here, how would Gorge know that? All the interviewed neighbours said the same thing. The Anthony's talked to no one. They were self isolated from the neighbours. And small time break-ins in a neighborhood do not make the news. Or newspapers. So that statement clearly is a lie.

Someone broke into my truck once by breaking a window. They rifled though the glove box but missed finding my cell phone which was behind the front seats. Does that make it less of a crime because they were too stupid to find the phone?

 

[HatesSociopaths]

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.

Thank you for this perspective as it looks to me to be the very likely scenario with what happened with the jurors. However, I do disagree with the idea the jury used logic and common sense.

As an example:

1. Is it logical that ICA would go to jail for 3 years for an accident before deciding to give this story of her father's involvement? Is it logical to make an accident look like a murder?

2. How is it logical to think GA was possibly in on it? Why do the jailhouse videos with both GA and ICA present not reflect this possibility that he is in on it? ICA is acting like she and her nanny were the last to see Caylee. How is it logical to believe it's reasonable to think George was present when Caylee had earlier said it was Zanny, then pointed the finger at her ex Jessie, then at Ray Kronk, etc.?

3. How is it logical to not see that there was a dead body in that trunk and ICA was the driver of that car, and that the towing company smelled it too?

4. Common sense in this case would have been to recognize all the lies told by Casey, her cover-up of the death, her partying afterward, the diary entry, etc. etc. and say "THIS GIRL DID IT."

Etc.

They indicted her on Murder 1 even before they found the body. All this circumstantial evidence, I just don't see how common sense gets one to any other conclusion.

 

[RANCH]

Thank you for this perspective as it looks to me to be the very likely scenario with what happened with the jurors. However, I do disagree with the idea the jury used logic and common sense.

As an example:

1. Is it logical that ICA would go to jail for 3 years for an accident before deciding to give this story of her father's involvement? Is it logical to make an accident look like a murder?

2. How is it logical to think GA was possibly in on it? Why do the jailhouse videos with both GA and ICA present not reflect this possibility that he is in on it? ICA is acting like she and her nanny were the last to see Caylee. How is it logical to believe it's reasonable to think George was present when Caylee had earlier said it was Zanny, then pointed the finger at her ex Jessie, then at Ray Kronk, etc.?

3. How is it logical to not see that there was a dead body in that trunk and ICA was the driver of that car, and that the towing company smelled it too?

4. Common sense in this case would have been to recognize all the lies told by Casey, her cover-up of the death, her partying afterward, the diary entry, etc. etc. and say "THIS GIRL DID IT."

Etc.

They indicted her on Murder 1 even before they found the body. All this circumstantial evidence, I just don't see how common sense gets one to any other conclusion.

Excellent post neighbor.Welcome aboard.

 

[logicalgirl]

Come on logicalgirl. If you are to understand this verdict, small details like a break in need to be ignored.I'm having a hard time understanding this verdict because apparently the defense angle is the only one considered.I would like someone to take multiple defense experts cross examination testimony and use it to show reasonable doubt.

I'm not having any trouble understanding the verdict - :waitasec: - forensics are forensics - Indisputable - but if one chooses to disregard the forensics, not understand reasonable doubt, disregard testimony, bases a verdict on the Defense OS, as instructed not to do, does not understand the SA does not have to prove cause or motive, and chooses not to connect the dots and consider the evidence in it's totality - then the verdict is really easy to understand.

I'm not having an issue at how this jury arrived at this verdict at all...

 

[RANCH]

I'm not having any trouble understanding the verdict - :waitasec: - forensics are forensics - Indisputable - but if one chooses to disregard the forensics, not understand reasonable doubt, disregard testimony, bases a verdict on the Defense OS, as instructed not to do, does not understand the SA does not have to prove cause or motive, and chooses not to connect the dots and consider the evidence in it's totality - then the verdict is really easy to understand.

I'm not having an issue at how this jury arrived at this verdict at all...

Ok. I got it. You understand this jury.I really like your list of reasons why.Thanks.

 

[MaryAnn]

Now to connect the dots here. Someone breaks into your shed and takes 2 gas can of no value. But leaves all items of value. That does not happen in my universe. People break in to steal items of value. There is no possible way that statement can be true.

Now there was break-ins around the neighborhood. I got to ask here, how would Gorge know that? All the interviewed neighbours said the same thing. The Anthony's talked to no one. They were self isolated from the neighbours. And small time break-ins in a neighborhood do not make the news. Or newspapers. So that statement clearly is a lie.

Maybe it slipped your mind that GA served as a Police Officer for 10 years. He could possibly have a CB radio or whatever they are where you can hear all the police calls. Even civilians can do this, I've heard it myself. I think GA knew it was his evil Daughter and was mad that she broke the shed! yes, remember Tony said ICA said "It's her shed, so she can break it if she wants". I would be angry too and probably call the police. GA had nothing to do with the killing of Caylee or dumping her in the swamp!

 

[kgeaux]

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?

:seeya:

I understand it to mean that ONE time someone searched for chloroform. The 84 times were someone visiting myspace.

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.

Well, if you are thinking that everyone who questions the evidence put forward by the prosecutor is blissfully ignorant, I think you've erred. Many of us have looked through every bit of the evidence, read the reports, and watched the trial. No ignorance here.

 

[pcrum12]

I think I missed that. Do you remember who the plant expert was? I'll go back and check that out.

Salem

It was the lady botanist -can't remember her name off top of my head

 

[RANCH]

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.

:seeya:

I understand it to mean that ONE time someone searched for chloroform. The 84 times were someone visiting myspace.



Well, if you are thinking that everyone who questions the evidence put forward by the prosecutor is blissfully ignorant, I think you've erred. Many of us have looked through every bit of the evidence, read the reports, and watched the trial. No ignorance here.

I'm not sure the OP meant it that cut and dry.Note when the poster says it can cut both ways when a jury acts in a certain way.Next time it may go against an innocent person.Good thought to ponder.

 

[MarthaM]

They indicted her on Murder 1 even before they found the body. All this circumstantial evidence, I just don't see how common sense gets one to any other conclusion.

Here's how I view circumstantial evidence and how I'd have approached it if I'd been on this jury:

I would consider each piece of evidence as testimony about it was presented and then refuted by the other side. Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretaton, so I'd decide whether I thought the evidence favored Position A (prosecutor) or Position B (defendant). If I could go 50/50 on a piece of evidence, then I'd have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that piece, given that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and hadn't tipped the scales in their direction on that piece.

In this case, my common sense and the way I view circumstantial evidence led me to believe, as the jurors did, that I wouldn't be able to convict on Murder One.

A few examples:

Body in the trunk? I thought the evidence showed there was a body in there, so prosecution gets that one.
Chloroform? I didn't think any of that testimony proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Casey leading a 'normal' life for a month after anyone last sees Caylee? I didn't think that proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Duct tape? This is a 50/50 one for me; could have been over nose & mouth but just as easily might not have been. Defense gets that one.

Even on just those few things, the prosecution would have already failed for me as a juror. And yes, I have common sense and a rational approach to evidence. I've even seen trials where one of the jury's instructions specifically says that if one piece of circumstantial evidence can have two equally reasonable interpretations, the jury should remember the prosecutor's burden of proof and can tip the scales in favor of the defense. I don't think that instruction was given in this trial, but it's one that makes sense to me when analyzing evidence.

 

[Chili Fries]

Yes, GA lied, and testimony may have been contradicted, but imo its was all to help his daughter (not save himself). His lying and combativeness on the stand is understandable too imo, although from what Ive been reading some think its not that unusual to be combative while being accused of molesting ones daughter and throwing your granddaughter away like trash (hmmm, learn something new everyday i guess). The tow yard guy didn't immediately call 911 either so Im assuming most think he was involved as well (maybe he knew RK and had car problems too, he could have also helped put the mandible back on the skull too i guess).

I wouldn't call JB "genius." He didn't save ICA's life, GA did! I live near Chicago (not too far away from orlando but far enough) and EVERYBODY i talk to regarding this case thinks JB, anybody involved with him, and CM are SLEAZY! This will be CM's crowning case, the one he'll be remembered by, and from what Im hearing when I mention JB and CM is "oh ya, those SLEAZY lawyers! (I dont think I would want to be remembered like that) Wow, family must be so proud of them, lol!

I didn't say JB is a genius, only that his decision to implicate George turned out to be an extremely smart idea (a stroke of genius). Planting the idea that George could have been involved both focused the jury away from Casey and strengthened the idea of an accidental death (because I don't think the jury would have bought George killing Caylee on purpose). And George's testimony definitely gave weight to the possibility. Honestly I don't think Baez really knew how this stuff was going to play out, obviously bringing up the sex abuse claims went nowhere. But his throwing spaghetti at the wall approach paid big dividends when George obviously started lying on the stand.

This thread is about trying to understand the verdict and to do so it's important to look at what the defense did well and the prosecution did poorly. This was a slam dunk case, unfortunately in the opposite way most people expected. Baez implicating George worked, there's no doubt about that. Just like the prosecution's attempt at putting Casey's friends on the stand backfired because Baez got them to say on cross examination that they thought Casey seemed like a good mom.

I've been trying to understand why the prosecution miscalculated so badly overall and I wonder if they just haven't been used to trying murder cases where public defenders put on basically perfunctory defenses. Ashton has said that this is the most complex case he ever tried, which I thought was surprising. I think the prosecution tried to play it safe like they usually do without realizing this trial was not at all like their usual ones.

 

[kgeaux]

I'm not sure the OP meant it that cut and dry.Note when the poster says it can cut both ways when a jury acts in a certain way.Next time it may go against an innocent person.Good thought to ponder.

Oh, there have been many, many cases where innocent people have been convicted, even sentenced to the death penalty, and were later exonerated. So it does cut both ways. Thank you for your response, you are so right!

 

[RANCH]

Here's how I view circumstantial evidence and how I'd have approached it if I'd been on this jury:

I would consider each piece of evidence as testimony about it was presented and then refuted by the other side. Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretaton, so I'd decide whether I thought the evidence favored Position A (prosecutor) or Position B (defendant). If I could go 50/50 on a piece of evidence, then I'd have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that piece, given that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and hadn't tipped the scales in their direction on that piece.

In this case, my common sense and the way I view circumstantial evidence led me to believe, as the jurors did, that I wouldn't be able to convict on Murder One.

A few examples:

Body in the trunk? I thought the evidence showed there was a body in there, so prosecution gets that one.
Chloroform? I didn't think any of that testimony proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Casey leading a 'normal' life for a month after anyone last sees Caylee? I didn't think that proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Duct tape? This is a 50/50 one for me; could have been over nose & mouth but just as easily might not have been. Defense gets that one.

Even on just those few things, the prosecution would have already failed for me as a juror. And yes, I have common sense and a rational approach to evidence. I've even seen trials where one of the jury's instructions specifically says that if one piece of circumstantial evidence can have two equally reasonable interpretations, the jury should remember the prosecutor's burden of proof and can tip the scales in favor of the defense. I don't think that instruction was given in this trial, but it's one that makes sense to me when analyzing evidence.

If I look at your short list, I see a dead body in the trunk for sure. Then maybe duct tape as a murder weapon. Then nothing for chloroform.And then finally nothing for driving a car with said body in the trunk.Just acting normal. If you were a juror I think your missing something.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Here's how I view circumstantial evidence and how I'd have approached it if I'd been on this jury:

I would consider each piece of evidence as testimony about it was presented and then refuted by the other side. Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretaton, so I'd decide whether I thought the evidence favored Position A (prosecutor) or Position B (defendant). If I could go 50/50 on a piece of evidence, then I'd have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that piece, given that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and hadn't tipped the scales in their direction on that piece.

In this case, my common sense and the way I view circumstantial evidence led me to believe, as the jurors did, that I wouldn't be able to convict on Murder One.

A few examples:

Body in the trunk? I thought the evidence showed there was a body in there, so prosecution gets that one.
Chloroform? I didn't think any of that testimony proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Casey leading a 'normal' life for a month after anyone last sees Caylee? I didn't think that proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Duct tape? This is a 50/50 one for me; could have been over nose & mouth but just as easily might not have been. Defense gets that one.

Even on just those few things, the prosecution would have already failed for me as a juror. And yes, I have common sense and a rational approach to evidence. I've even seen trials where one of the jury's instructions specifically says that if one piece of circumstantial evidence can have two equally reasonable interpretations, the jury should remember the prosecutor's burden of proof and can tip the scales in favor of the defense. I don't think that instruction was given in this trial, but it's one that makes sense to me when analyzing evidence.

Regarding the chloroform, the google searches done were quite persuasive when tied to the chloroform found in the trunk where the dead body was. The fact CA was impeached in her attempt to claim it was her that did the searches just further confirmed it was ICA that did them. It's one thing to look up chloroform to clear up the definition, but to also look up "how to make chloroform", "inhalation," "death," "self-defense" and "head injury" within 15 minutes shows it was more than just clearing up something she saw on myspace.

Regarding Casey leading a normal life afterward, that's a bit too much shorthand for me. She was covering up what happened to Caylee - she lied about Caylee's whereabouts to friends, family and the authorities until the day Caylee was found in the swamp. She showed no signs of grief, said this was the happiest she has ever been in her diary, got the tatoo, etc. That's not logical, and it's not consistent with what a mother does after her daughter drowns in the pool. Common sense.

Regarding the duct tape, what other purpose is there for putting duct tape on a face? It was still keeping the skull together, attached to hairs on the skull and the idea it was used for suffocation purposes is the only logical explanation. The medical examiner testified to this.

 

[RANCH]

Oh, there have been many, many cases where innocent people have been convicted, even sentenced to the death penalty, and were later exonerated. So it does cut both ways. Thank you for your response, you are so right!

I'm thankful you agree that the jury did poorly.