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

[Celt1997]

I'm sure you know the answer: the tape holds the mandible in place because the tape is stuck to the skin that covers the jaw. But if you dump your kid's dead body in a swamp, there may not be much skin left six months later.

I think this is the question that the poster is asking, then. If there was no skin left, no glue left on the tape, and the body had been under water (with different currents/flow), how can one make an absolute determination of the placement prior to the discovery? In addition, if the tape was no longer "stuck" to any part of the actual skull/mandible, why would the mandible still be in an anatomical position? Something doesn't add up? If the tape was still sticky I could see the mandible being where it was, but it wasn't sticky anymore.

The PP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are the issues they were getting at.

 

[eleni777]

I think this is the question that the poster is asking, then. If there was no skin left, no glue left on the tape, and the body had been under water (with different currents/flow), how can one make an absolute determination of the placement prior to the discovery? In addition, if the tape was no longer "stuck" to any part of the actual skull/mandible, why would the mandible still be in an anatomical position? Something doesn't add up? If the tape was still sticky I could see the mandible being where it was, but it wasn't sticky anymore.

The PP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those are the issues they were getting at.

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong...IIRC the skull was partially embedded in the mud on it's side when it was found and the tape was "underneath" the side that was embedded in the mud. If it was partially embedded in the mud, then THAT would have been the reason the lower jaw bone was still connected to the skull.. I do know for a fact that RK moved the skull enough to verify that it was INDEED a skull. He didn't pick it up with the meter reader stick, I believe the phrase "manipulated it" was given at his depo. (I know this because i went back and listened to his statement to the LE)

I dont know I think I'm going crazy trying to remember everything..

 

[logicalgirl]

I wasn't looking for help, because I was stating how I look at circumstantial evidence in general and in this case in particular. This thread was supposed to be about helping others to understand the thought process of those of us who thought the verdict was correct or see ourselves as voting the same way if we were jurors. I understand that others would disagree with my take on the evidence and the trial, but I'm not interested in a debate on the specifics at this point, and especially not on this thread. That's becoming repetitive and pointless IMO.



Sure, and I agree. But the only way I can make an assessment of evidence in a trial this complicated is to break it down into smaller pieces and then step back and look at what I've got as a whole. In this case, I ended up with a prosecution that didn't meet their burden of proof.

My method works best for me because it gives me much truer picture of what the prosecution had (or didn't have, in this trial).

BBM:

The thread is titled "for those who agree with the verdict....help me understand" and that is what those of us who don't agree with the verdict are here to do.
We are reading what those who agree with the verdict are posting and pointing out that the information posters are using as examples is just plain in correct.
Such as the tape wasn't holding the mandible in place...I even posted the autopsy report. First it was the tape, then by the time the skin/tissue decomposed, the tape was stuck in the hair and the plant root material held it in place.
Did you see Dr. Spitz try to even keep the mandible in place or put it back when he was on the stand - did you see him fumble and drop it? And have you seen his latest statement that even he doesn't understand how the jury arrived at their verdict?
Regarding Roy Kronk "moving/lifting" the skull - did you notice the LE questioned him several times about what he did? He said he first lifted the skull, then he said he rotated it slightly. Clearly he was shocked by what he found and confused - because the root growth very obviously showed it was impossible to have moved it and have the root growth remain in place.

Re only early carrion bugs - you heard the experts testify that the body was packaged, not open like Dr. Huntington's pig evidence, and that chloroform is a pesticide? And if the body was moved the bug evidence went with it? Both the Defense experts and the States experts both testified to those facts.

So for those of us you feel are nit picking or debating, what we seek is actual information because we are now listening to jurors speak about why they voted not guilty. They speak of George, and rumours, but none have debated the actual evidence and that is the why we remain disturbed by their decision. I would like to add I have accepted the verdict - I simply haven't accept the methods of the "<modsnip>" that arrived at it.

 

[crimesnooper]

It is my understanding that she was in jail because of the being convicted on the check fraud charges steming from stealing from her friend Amy. She wasn't sitting in jail for 3 years because of what happened to Caylee..

She was in jail for one year for the check charges and held without bond for the additional charges for murder while awaiting trial. She did not serve three years for check fraud.

 

[Chablis]

BBM:

The thread is titled "for those who agree with the verdict....help me understand" and that is what those of us who don't agree with the verdict are here to do.
We are reading what those who agree with the verdict are posting and pointing out that the information posters are using as examples is just plain in correct.
Such as the tape wasn't holding the mandible in place...I even posted the autopsy report. First it was the tape, then by the time the skin/tissue decomposed, the tape was stuck in the hair and the plant root material held it in place.
Did you see Dr. Spitz try to even keep the mandible in place or put it back when he was on the stand - did you see him fumble and drop it? And have you seen his latest statement that even he doesn't understand how the jury arrived at their verdict?
Regarding Roy Kronk "moving/lifting" the skull - did you notice the LE questioned him several times about what he did? He said he first lifted the skull, then he said he rotated it slightly. Clearly he was shocked by what he found and confused - because the root growth very obviously showed it was impossible to have moved it and have the root growth remain in place.

Re only early carrion bugs - you heard the experts testify that the body was packaged, not open like Dr. Huntington's pig evidence, and that chloroform is a pesticide? And if the body was moved the bug evidence went with it? Both the Defense experts and the States experts both testified to those facts.

So for those of us you feel are nit picking or debating, what we seek is actual information because we are now listening to jurors speak about why they voted not guilty. They speak of George, and rumours, but none have debated the actual evidence and that is the why we remain disturbed by their decision.

The State used air samples from a car that had been knowingly cleaned and aired out for hours and tried to say that the levels were so high, even though the FBI said it was consistent with CLEANING, which we know Cindy did. I guess Jose was right, if you hate her, you can try to twist this into she killed her child with chloroform. And that is wrong. jmo

 

[WillChgo]

BBM.

Reposting the topic of this thread. We've had plenty of posters who have tried to answer these questions, but for me, it's hard to have a discussion of the verdict when every single sentence of a support post is picked apart. We keep going round and round and round. It doesn't seem like there's really any understanding being fostered, because we keep getting derailed by nitpicking.

I respectfully disagree.

We ARE having a discussion by debating (i.e., "nitpicking") the rationales provided to support a not guilty verict.

There are arguments to be made for supporting a verdict of not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I appreciate those posters who provide them.

The question is whether these arguments still hold upon deeper scrutiny . IMO the "nitpicking" indicates" they do not.

 

[CathyR]

Something George did also made me suspicious of him. His purchase of a firearm and bringing it to the home when he knows Casey can not be around a gun. He was ex law enforcement so he knew very well the rules. His suicide attempt as well. Is this an attempt to throw her under the bus before she can do it to him? Many do not believe George or Cindy had anything to do with it but George's behavior was questionable as to his motives- I don't believe him either. I Googled chloroform and also chlorophyll both searches came back with either a recipe to make it or as in the case of chlorophyll the link at bottom of page was for chloroform. There was also many Casey and Cindy Anthony links so I counted all those as non important( they would not have appeared at the time the searches were done).
The prosecution relied upon a science that has NEVER been used in a court case before. It was easy for the defense to counter with expert witnesses.

 

[logicalgirl]

The State used air samples from a car that had been knowingly cleaned and aired out for hours and tried to say that the levels were so high, even though the FBI said it was consistent with CLEANING, which we know Cindy did. I guess Jose was right, if you hate her, you can try to twist this into she killed her child with chloroform. And that is wrong. jmo

I don't hate anybody and you don't either understand the facts or just plain didn't listen to them. Cindy did not clean out the trunk and the FBI person said it could be consistent - could- with cleaning products, but couldn't offer any proof, but even after being aired out it still showed higher air level chloroform samples than it should and he could not explain it. The high chloroform levels in the carpet could NOT be explained away by any form of cleaning by either expert.

What the heck does scientific evidence have to do with whether or not I like someone? Or is it the other way around? I think ICA is guilty because the amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to her in this case is huge - I don't think "anything" about ICA except the facts point to her being a killer.

I am a logical thinker - not an emotional one.

 

[Chablis]

I don't hate anybody and you don't either understand the facts or just plain didn't listen to them. Cindy did not clean out the trunk and the FBI person said it could be consistent - could- with cleaning products, but couldn't offer any proof, but even after being aired out it still showed higher air level chloroform samples than it should and he could not explain it. The high chloroform levels in the carpet could NOT be explained away by any form of cleaning by either expert.

What the heck does scientific evidence have to do with whether or not I like someone? Or is it the other way around? I think ICA is guilty because the amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to her in this case is huge - I don't think "anything" about ICA except the facts point to her being a killer.

I am a logical thinker - not an emotional one.

So Cindy says she never touched the trunk? They just opened it up and aired it out? Ok, so lets say no cleaning product touched the trunk, it was OPEN for HOURS, so with that FACT, how is a sample taken from it afterwards an accurate condition that reflected when Casey had that car? A sample from a aired out car, and one search for chloroform months ago, thats enough right there to prove she murdered her kid? Thank goodness the legal system worked.

 

[logicalgirl]

Something George did also made me suspicious of him. His purchase of a firearm and bringing it to the home when he knows Casey can not be around a gun. He was ex law enforcement so he knew very well the rules. His suicide attempt as well. Is this an attempt to throw her under the bus before she can do it to him? Many do not believe George or Cindy had anything to do with it but George's behavior was questionable as to his motives- I don't believe him either. I Googled chloroform and also chlorophyll both searches came back with either a recipe to make it or as in the case of chlorophyll the link at bottom of page was for chloroform. There was also many Casey and Cindy Anthony links so I counted all those as non important( they would not have appeared at the time the searches were done).
The prosecution relied upon a science that has NEVER been used in a court case before. It was easy for the defense to counter with expert witnesses.

All of the prosecution evidence had to pass what is called a Frye hearing - a fairly complicated process - to be acceptable in court. Expert evidence cannot be just some airy fairy opinions. Interestingly enough, Jeff Ashton was the first to have DNA evidence admitted into a trial. Everyone thought it was hooey and not to be trusted back then also.

And can I AGAIN repeat that each defense expert AGREED with the SA's experts at the end of their testimonies.

Oh except for <modsnip> Sally :great: - she just opened the door to "Everything" but by then for me it didn't matter because I was too concerned she would just fall right off the witness stand with all the teetering back and forth she was doing.

 

[eleni777]

I don't hate anybody and you don't either understand the facts or just plain didn't listen to them. Cindy did not clean out the trunk and the FBI person said it could be consistent - could- with cleaning products, but couldn't offer any proof, but even after being aired out it still showed higher air level chloroform samples than it should and he could not explain it. The high chloroform levels in the carpet could NOT be explained away by any form of cleaning by either expert.

What the heck does scientific evidence have to do with whether or not I like someone? Or is it the other way around? I think ICA is guilty because the amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to her in this case is huge - I don't think "anything" about ICA except the facts point to her being a killer.

I am a logical thinker - not an emotional one.

You have the SA saying the decomposing body was in the trunk, Casey kept Caylee in the Trunk while she partied and yet ONLY ONE HAIR is found... THE TRUNK was TOO CLEAN. Cindy cleaned the car and the items in the car so it is reasonable to concluded that trunk was cleaned by someone and that someone was is Cindy AND George.

 

[logicalgirl]

So Cindy says she never touched the trunk? They just opened it up and aired it out? Ok, so lets say no cleaning product touched the trunk, it was OPEN for HOURS, so with that FACT, how is a sample taken from it afterwards an accurate condition that reflected when Casey had that car? A sample from a aired out car, and one search for chloroform months ago, thats enough right there to prove she murdered her kid? Thank goodness the legal system worked.

How about a rug sample that registered chloroform off the charts?

It was Cindy who testified she placed the Febreze sheets in the trunk. It was the CSI who testified the trunk was not "clean".

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I agree with the verdict.

For the posters who do not agree with the verdict, I understand why you do not agree. The evidence the state presented was adequate to garner a guilty verdict. The theory of the state certainly showed it was possible that KC was guilty of charges.

The evidence the defense presented was adequate to raise reasonable doubt about the states evidence. The theory of the defense certainly showed it was possible that KC may not be guilty of these charges.

For me, although the state did show it was possible that KC was guilty, the defense successfully raised reasonable doubt about what the state did show, and the defense did show an alternative theory of not guilty.

BOTH theories were good. BOTH theories were possible. BOTH theories had reasonable doubt attached to them.

When both theories are reasonably plausible, the jury must acquit.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[logicalgirl]

You have the SA saying the decomposing body was in the trunk, Casey kept Caylee in the Trunk while she partied and yet ONLY ONE HAIR is found... THE TRUNK was TOO CLEAN. Cindy cleaned the car and the items in the car so it is reasonable to concluded that trunk was cleaned by someone and that someone was is Cindy AND George.

The trunk was not clean, the remains were triple bagged before they were placed in the trunk and there was no evidence presented by the Defense to say that either Cindy or George cleaned the trunk. So that is a supposition not a fact. I understood we were discussing facts. And yes, one hair that showed a death band and belonged to Caylee.

A trunk that stunk of human decomposition. And that is a fact, not a supposition.

 

[Chablis]

How about a rug sample that registered chloroform off the charts?

It was Cindy who testified she placed the Febreze sheets in the trunk. It was the CSI who testified the trunk was not "clean".

The trunk was aired out prior to a sample, and there was cleaning product. George left Cindy alone with that car, who knows what she poured into it. The FBI said the levels were consistant with cleaning product, and we know Cindy cleaned, so how is that proof Casey killed her kid with chloroform? But like Jose said, IF you HATE Casey, somehow this can be twisted, and its not right at all. It just isn't.

 

[eleni777]

The trunk was not clean, the remains were triple bagged before they were placed in the trunk and there was no evidence presented by the Defense to say that either Cindy or George cleaned the trunk. So that is a supposition not a fact. I understood we were discussing facts. And yes, one hair that showed a death band and belonged to Caylee.

A trunk that stunk of human decomposition. And that is a fact, not a supposition.

My point was that if Caylee was being Chloroformed and kept in the trunk so Casey could party there would have been more evidence of hairs that didn't have a death band. If Caylee's decomposing body was kept in the trunk for a few days even two garbage bags and a cloth laundry bag would NOT stop decomp fluids from seeping out. There was no decomp fluids or material except for the one hair and the smell. There was only one blow fly leg.

I fully believe that between the time that George got home with the car from the tow yard and Cindy returned with Casey, the trunk HAD to be cleaned and George cleaned it. The only other explanation is that Caylee was never kept in the trunk while Casey partied and after death Caylee was only in the trunk for a few minutes while casey drove around the corner to dump her dead body.

 

[Salem]

STOP BICKERING. Please stop bickering. There are 100's of threads in this forum. If you do not want to openly and freely post in this thread, you do not have to - go to one of the other threads where you may feel more comfortable.

But please stop poking at one another. It's not necessary and it does not add to the understanding, it only causes disharmony. We have had enough of that - so let's keep moving forward.

Salem

 

[logicalgirl]

The trunk was aired out prior to a sample, and there was cleaning product. George left Cindy alone with that car, who knows what she poured into it. The FBI said the levels were consistant with cleaning product, and we know Cindy cleaned, so how is that proof Casey killed her kid with chloroform? But like Jose said, IF you HATE Casey, somehow this can be twisted, and its not right at all. It just isn't.

Neither of these statements were true. They just aren't. The FBI person used words like "could" and was unable to provide any cleaning products that could produce this result.

Who said I believe chlorform killed Caylee? Three pieces of duct tape over her nose and mouth prevented her from breathing.

Why would I hate ICA? This is about evidence - which all points towards her, and no one else. It's not that simple that because I "hate" her I think she is guilty. If I hated her I wouldn't have needed to spend a great deal of my personal time reading depos, reading evidence reports and watching hearings, Frye hearings, jury selection and finally the trial. I could have loafed around if it was as simple as I "hated" her. I have better things to do with my time. Indisputable evidence points towards her guilt and no one else, therefore I believe she is guilty.

I am simply making observations of fact. And you do understand that the "accident theory" was a last minute ditch effort by the defense to even come up with a defense, don't you? There are hours of media clips of ICA and then Baez saying the child is missing, the child was kidnapped, the child was killed by SODDI, until about two months before the trial?

This was a last minute defense dreamed up by Baez and oh yes, lets throw in a little salacious incest because people love that - because after 2.5 years of searching he could not find an expert who agreed with him. And it worked, to even his surprise.

 

[Salem]

I want to point out that the jury did not have the information we had. Even during the trial, the jury did not get all the info that the spectators did. The jury was excluded from many, many discussions and sidebars.

I have thought about going back and rewatching, fast forwarding through all the parts the jury was not privy to, to see if it would make a difference in my thought process. But honestly, I don't have the heart. I'm very sad for little Caylee and angry at ICA. And I'm just DONE with the others. And if I did spend the time, it wouldn't matter cuz I can't change anything anyway.

Salem

 

[cyberborg]

I don't hate anybody and you don't either understand the facts or just plain didn't listen to them. Cindy did not clean out the trunk and the FBI person said it could be consistent - could- with cleaning products, but couldn't offer any proof, but even after being aired out it still showed higher air level chloroform samples than it should and he could not explain it. The high chloroform levels in the carpet could NOT be explained away by any form of cleaning by either expert.

What the heck does scientific evidence have to do with whether or not I like someone? Or is it the other way around? I think ICA is guilty because the amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to her in this case is huge - I don't think "anything" about ICA except the facts point to her being a killer.

I am a logical thinker - not an emotional one.

Agreed. IIRC JA had brought forward that if the chloroform was as a result of cleaning products or any other combination of products that ... there would be byproducts and there was nothing else detected. So it ruled out other sources of combination of sources IMO.