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

[1Chump]

One of the things that bothered me about Cindy's testimony about June 15, 2008 was that Casey and her were watching videos/pictures of Caylee with Cindy's Dad...crying. Cindy said they were crying because they realized it might be the last time Caylee saw Cindy's Dad. Cindy's Dad is still alive.

 

[Chablis]

One of the things that bothered me about Cindy's testimony about June 15, 2008 was that Casey and her were watching videos/pictures of Caylee with Cindy's Dad...crying. Cindy said they were crying because they realized it might be the last time Caylee saw Cindy's Dad. Cindy's Dad is still alive.

Well maybe they didn't have high hopes on his future health?

 

[BAHD]

Here is a link for those who want to show support for KC.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Goal-5-Million-people-Say-Casey-Anthony-is-Innocent/175865605807985

 

[cmsg2002]

snipped from your first post.

I think that if the jury feels that Caylee truly drowned in the pool while George and Casey were in the house, unknowing she was in the pool (perhaps they were sleeping in the early morning hours, etc.); that doesn't qualify as culpable negligence. Am I understanding the instructions wrong?

but again, this goes back to the heart of the issue....there was no evidence presented that Caylee drowned in the pool, and that Casey and George were both home/present when it happened. the DT's opening stmt were not facts....were not evidence....were not to be considered in deliberation....and certainly whatever "evidence" the DT attempted to put forward certainly didn't rise to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt! A pic of Caylee reaching for the door handle? A couple of pics showing Caylee being assisted by Cindy on the pool ladder?

This jury did not apply the same standard to their deliberations...they gave more credibility to scant evidence then they did to hard, factual, proven evidence.

to say this was a travesty or miscarriage of justice is an understatement....more like an outright abortion to me. MOO:maddening:

 

[beccalecca1]

but again, this goes back to the heart of the issue....there was no evidence presented that Caylee drowned in the pool, and that Casey and George were both home/present when it happened. the DT's opening stmt were not facts....were not evidence....were not to be considered in deliberation....and certainly whatever "evidence" the DT attempted to put forward certainly didn't rise to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt! A pic of Caylee reaching for the door handle? A couple of pics showing Caylee being assisted by Cindy on the pool ladder?

This jury did not apply the same standard to their deliberations...they gave more credibility to scant evidence then they did to hard, factual, proven evidence.

to say this was a travesty or miscarriage of justice is an understatement....more like an outright abortion to me. MOO:maddening:

I respectfully disagree. I think there was enough evidence to point out how probable it was that Caylee drowned in the pool, not that she was murdered by her mother.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Here is a link for those who want to show support for KC.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Goal-5-Million-people-Say-Casey-Anthony-is-Innocent/175865605807985

:sick:uke:

JMO

 

[jrb0124]

but again, this goes back to the heart of the issue....there was no evidence presented that Caylee drowned in the pool, and that Casey and George were both home/present when it happened. the DT's opening stmt were not facts....were not evidence....were not to be considered in deliberation....and certainly whatever "evidence" the DT attempted to put forward certainly didn't rise to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt! A pic of Caylee reaching for the door handle? A couple of pics showing Caylee being assisted by Cindy on the pool ladder?

This jury did not apply the same standard to their deliberations...they gave more credibility to scant evidence then they did to hard, factual, proven evidence.

to say this was a travesty or miscarriage of justice is an understatement....more like an outright abortion to me. MOO:maddening:

The defense has no obligation to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt - the State does.

The jury does not have to believe the defense "story" is more credible than the State's theory, only that an alternate explanation for the circumstances of Caylee's death which does not include homicide with Casey as the perp is not unreasonable.

 

[magnolia]

I respectfully disagree. I think there was enough evidence to point out how probable it was that Caylee drowned in the pool, not that she was murdered by her mother.

BBM I would have to totally ignore all the other evidence in order to come to that conclusion.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

BTW, thanks for moving the post to the more appropriate thread.

To clarify, the expert whose scientific opinion on MOD = "undeterminable" I was referring to was Dr. Spitz.

To get offtrack from the quality of the opinions for just a second...even if both were made as scientific opinion;

One ME expert (JG) stated homicide as MOD, the other (WS) concluded undetermined as MOD - so there is a conflict in testimony, and per the jury instructions a conflict in evidence/testimony (also weighed with witness credibility) is reasonable doubt:

WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.
.
.
EXPERT WITNESSES

Expert witnesses are like other witnesses, with one exception – the law permits an expert witness to give her opinion.

However, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe her to be an expert.

Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.
.
.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.​

Back to the opinion itself.

Dr. G's 3 foundations for her opinion of homicide: (1) accidental death of a child does not go unreported, (2) body was hidden, (3) duct tape around the face.

(1) IMO is not a qualifier for homicide as MOD, nor IMO is it an opinion based on the expertise of Dr. G. of the hundreds of thousands of missing children never found in the country, its reasonable to believe that at least some are the result of a covered-up accidental death...is it not? In fact, thats exactly what the police in Portugal accused the McCanns of.

(2) Assuming accidental deaths of children are occassionally covered up (i.e. child reported 'missing') isn't it then reasonable to presume the body was hidden?

(3) IMO this is the only possible qualifier for a ME MOD opinion to be homicide, but only if he/she is certain that the tape in fact covered the nose and mouth, and that the COD was asphyxiation. WS testified that this was impossible to determine, and there was no evidence that the duct tape covered the mouth and nose pre-mortem, causing death.

Yes, Dr. G. (an expert) gave an an opinion that MOD was homicide - but did not qualify that opinion with expert analysis. Another expert gave an opinion that MOD was undeterminable and did qualify that with expert analysis.

Excellent post.

The jury obviously gave the testimony of Dr. Spitz at least equal weight to the testismony of Dr. G. That equals reasonable doubt.

Basically something similar happened with nearly all the experts. This placed reasonable doubt on all the forensic issues in the case. The jury now had to vote not guilty on count 1.

That leaves the 31 days and partying, which the grief counselor attached some reasonable doubt to. The jury now had to vote not guilty on count 2.

GA's testimony had KC and Caylee leaving that morning. The jury chose to disbelieve this part of GA's testimony, which they were instructed they could do. In doing so, this placed both GA and KC as potential caretakers on the morning Caylee was last seen alive. Since the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether it was GA or KC, the jury had to vote not guilty on count 3.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[jrb0124]

BBM I would have to totally ignore all the other evidence in order to come to that conclusion.

Not really.

As explained throughout this thread, the defense presented experts who's testimony and/or interpretation or analysis of evidence conflicted to varying degrees with the State experts: air samples, carpet samples, autopsy opinions, duct tape positioning, insects, computer forensics...

What you are saying it that you would have to question the State's intepretation of some (not all) evidence (not the evidence itself) to come to that conclusion - and this is true.

Additionally, the defense presented forensic experts who's testimony was uncontested by the State: i.e. RE and the touch DNA...marker on duct tape excluded Caylee and Casey. Someone's DNA was on that duct tape and it wasn't Casey's or Caylee's.

 

[1Chump]

The defense has no obligation to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt - the State does.

The jury does not have to believe the defense "story" is more credible than the State's theory, only that an alternate explanation for the circumstances of Caylee's death which does not include homicide with Casey as the perp is not unreasonable.

IMO, that right there explains why so many do not understand the jury verdict.

IMO, jurors started with Casey presumed innocent with the State having to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those who do not understand the verdict, presumed Casey guilty with the Defense proving her innocent. However, as the Defense has no duty to prove innocence, they did not even try.

 

[magnolia]

Not really.

As explained throughout this thread, the defense presented experts who's testimony and/or interpretation or analysis of evidence conflicted to varying degrees with the State experts: air samples, carpet samples, autopsy opinions, duct tape positioning, insects, computer forensics...

What you are saying it that you would have to ignore the State's intepretation of evidence (not the evidence itself) to come to that conclusion - and this is true.

Additionally, the defense presented forensic experts who's testimony was uncontested by the State: i.e. RE and the touch DNA...marker on duct tape excluded Caylee and Casey. Someone's DNA was on that duct tape and it wasn't Casey's or Caylee's.

BBM You are absolutely correct.

The DNA belonged to FBI Lab Tech. Lorie Gottesman. She testified to that fact.

 

[beccalecca1]

BBM I would have to totally ignore all the other evidence in order to come to that conclusion.

I'm confused on what evidence would have to be ignored. Most, if not all of the state's evidence was disputed and contradicted in court. A lot of it was all 'hype', and didn't hold much merit IMO.

 

[beccalecca1]

BBM You are absolutely correct.

The DNA belonged to FBI Lab Tech. Lorie Gottesman. She testified to that fact.

She testified to the outer DNA profile (full profile I might add) being her's. There was another marker on the tape, that wasn't Casey's or Caylees, and it only had one allele, 17. This wasn't Lorie's. And, a full profile, or at least a more amplified profile could've been attained if they would've allowed touch DNA.

 

[jrb0124]

BBM You are absolutely correct.

The DNA belonged to FBI Lab Tech. Lorie Gottesman. She testified to that fact.

Eikenbloom also tested the "unknown" with all people known to have come into contact with the evidence to exclude them.

 

[I Must Break You]

2. At least some of the testimony from GA and CA was put into doubt. CA provably lied about the searches at that time of day. She was at work. GA I believe lied about the extent of his involvement with River Cruz. At the very least, he was pretty darn combative on the stand.

I have yet to get how maybe GA POSSIBLY having an affair has anything to do with anything. I wish someone could explain this to me, it looked like a way just to show GA would maybe lie (cause really there is absolutely no proof he had an affair, just a lot of "oh I think he did" stuff)... but hey about every damn man would lie in this position. Here was a guy with a domineering wife, and he sought comfort (MAYBE) in the arms of another woman, now he is confronted with it... and IF he did, maybe he doesn't wanna lose what little of his life he has left, so he MAYBE lied about it. A POSSIBLE affair doesn't make him a liar about anything else. I just really hate how this is being used to show that a solid case wasn't made against ICA. While I agree the prosecution kind of dropped the ball, but I firmly believe there was enough evidence of manslaughter, and the fact that she was found not guilty of child neglect makes me really think something else was going on here... maybe the jurors had dollar signs in their eyes about delivering a controversial verdict. This really just reeks of the CSI effect, that hey there is no scientific proof placing her right there with the body... not guilty. Doesn't have to be, circumstantial cases can be just as compelling. Also the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been so perverted over the years by defense attorneys and the media, that it is practically believed to be "beyond an absolute doubt" nowadays.

 

[magnolia]

I'm confused on what evidence would have to be ignored. Most, if not all of the state's evidence was disputed and contradicted in court. A lot of it was all 'hype', and didn't hold much merit IMO.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. No knowledge the DNA belonged to the Lab Tech. What can I say??

 

[RJA00]

my husband just walked in her and asked me a something he doesn't really follow these cases he cant stand to here about a child missing or somebody hurting a child

there was a child neglect charge right ?

he said over the years, I have spent more time and energy looking for lost dogs then she did for her daughter. if are dog was gone more then 24 hrs we went to the pound and reported the dog missing !

we just moved and the dogs did get out and decide to go back home a couple of times
we went to that pound everyday and walked the isle of lost dogs (we did finally catch up with him at the old house

please help me understand why not reporting your child missing is not neglect
you are responsible for that child, there safety

 

[I Must Break You]

my husband just walked in her and asked me a something he doesn't really follow these cases he cant stand to here about a child missing or somebody hurting a child

there was a child neglect charge right ?

he said over the years, I have spent more time and energy looking for lost dogs then she did for her daughter. if are dog was gone more then 24 hrs we went to the pound and reported the dog missing !

we just moved and the dogs did get out and decide to go back home a couple of times
we went to that pound everyday and walked the isle of lost dogs (we did finally catch up with him at the old house

please help me understand why not reporting your child missing is not neglect
you are responsible for that child, there safety

Like I just stated a few posts ago, there is absolutely no excuse for her being found not guilty of child neglect. Not reporting a child missing for over a month is absolutely child neglect period. This is the one charge being dismissed makes me question everything going on here. Hopefully that bill to stop jurors from making money on high profile cases with controversial verdicts will pass and pass soon.

 

[jrb0124]

Like I just stated a few posts ago, there is absolutely no excuse for her being found not guilty of child neglect. Not reporting a child missing for over a month is absolutely child neglect period. This is the one charge being dismissed makes me question everything going on here. Hopefully that bill to stop jurors from making money on high profile cases with controversial verdicts will pass and pass soon.

BBM

Casey wasn't charged by the State with child neglect. A jury cannot render a verdict on something the defendent is not charged with.