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

[beccalecca1]

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 abuse 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.

IMO, the affair proves this:

--George lied not only on the stand, but throughout the whole investigation in regards to at least this.

--RC was "in the know" of important details in this case (ie. "accident that snowballed out of control")

--George knew at the very least that Caylee was truly dead, all the while claiming she was still missing and collecting interview money and foundation money from anyone willing to hand it over.


Of course, there's probably more to add to that list.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

There was no charge of Child Negligence. This is where I believe the state got it wrong, she would've definitely been charged with that if they even believed the DT theory.

 

[I Must Break You]

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.

Ok, it was child abuse though wasn't it? I'm pretty sure it was something to that effect she was charged with.

 

[beccalecca1]

Ok, it was child abuse though wasn't it? I'm pretty sure it was something to that effect she was charged with.

There was a charge for Aggravated Child Abuse, but there was no proof that Caylee was being abused.

 

[I Must Break You]

IMO, the affair proves this:

--George lied not only on the stand, but throughout the whole investigation in regards to at least this.

--RC was "in the know" of important details in this case (ie. "accident that snowballed out of control")

--George knew at the very least that Caylee was truly dead, all the while claiming she was still missing and collecting interview money and foundation money from anyone willing to hand it over.


Of course, there's probably more to add to that list.

I'm not following... so him maybe lying about an affair and maybe saying it was an "accident that snowballed out of control" proves he was in on it? I don't see it that way. It was a he said/she said thing with him and RC, and she was already a liar about having cancer.

 

[jrb0124]

IMO, the affair proves this:

--George lied not only on the stand, but throughout the whole investigation in regards to at least this.

--RC was "in the know" of important details in this case (ie. "accident that snowballed out of control")

--George knew at the very least that Caylee was truly dead, all the while claiming she was still missing and collecting interview money and foundation money from anyone willing to hand it over.


Of course, there's probably more to add to that list.

--George hid secrets (the affair) from Cindy.

--George would not implicate himself in wrongdoing in a small (relatively) matter, why would he in the death of Caylee or molestation charges.

 

[beccalecca1]

Ok, it was child abuse though wasn't it? I'm pretty sure it was something to that effect she was charged with.

Found this quote from another poster with instructions from HHJP

Perry told jurors that each of us has a duty to act reasonable towards another. He said that a violation without intent is negligence. But to be culpable, Perry told the Court, the negligence must be gross and flagrant, exhibit a reckless disregard to human life or conscious disregard for the safety or welfare of the public, or the rights of others.

Perry told the court that an culpable negligence exists when you do an act, or follow a course of conduct, that you should have known would cause harm to others. Perry thereafter focused on the “of a child” section of the charge. He said that Casey was Caylee’s caregiver. Perry said that a parent is defined as a caregiver; a child is defined as anyone under age 18; and the negligent of a child by a caregiver can be exhibited with lack of food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, and medical services essential for the welfare of the child.

 

[Chablis]

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.

If anyone needs to be blaming anyone, some should probably blame the state for overcharging.

 

[1Chump]

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 abuse 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.

The jury instructions:

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.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?

2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?

4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

5. Does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? The instructions covered under paragraphs numbered 6 through 10, inclusive, are not common to all cases. These numbered paragraphs should be included only as required by the evidence.

6. Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment, or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?

7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness's testimony?

8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony [he] [she] gave in court?

9. Was it proved that the witness had been convicted of a crime?

10. Was it proved that the general reputation of the witness for telling the truth and being honest was bad?

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

********
A witness did not have to be impeached for the jury to find him not credibile. They could make their own conclusion as to GA being truthful.

Personally, my hinky meter was going off immediately. Over and over people ask what type of Mother in regards to Casey. What about what type of Father?

What type of Father does not tell his daughter to keep her mouth shut until she talks to an attorney? What type of Father secretly goes to LE to help them build a case against his daughter? What type of Father buys a gun the day his daughter is bonded out knowing a gun in the house will send her right back? What type of Father volunteers to the jury when his daughter is facing the death penalty that he now believes his daughter killed his granddaughter?

There is a HUGE difference between wanting your child to be held responsible for harming a granddaughter and wanting your daughter dead. Answering questions they ask you....of course. But voluntarily trying to help them make a case against your daughter in a death penalty state.

What type of Father does that?

 

[beccalecca1]

I'm not following... so him maybe lying about an affair and maybe saying it was an "accident that snowballed out of control" proves he was in on it? I don't see it that way. It was a he said/she said thing with him and RC, and she was already a liar about having cancer.

The time those statements were made was before Caylee was found. So, IF those statements were made, then it shows that he knew about the accident and wasn't alerting anyone (LE, media, Kid Finders, etc).

 

[jrb0124]

The fact that we here on WS continue to rehash and debate the evidence from both sides- SA & DT -shows that it is logical that there is some doubt -the burden of proof wasn't there for 1st degree murder. I get that.

I reviewed the language of the laws provided to the jury and I understand that they didn't find her guilty of aggravated child abuse.

I find it difficult, however, to understand how the culpable negligence of manslaughter wasn't a charge they could agree to. But I have to respect their decision.
.

^ a post from yesterday that also questions the issue of charging.

 

[I Must Break You]

The jury instructions:

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.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?

2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?

4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

5. Does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? The instructions covered under paragraphs numbered 6 through 10, inclusive, are not common to all cases. These numbered paragraphs should be included only as required by the evidence.

6. Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment, or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?

7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness's testimony?

8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony [he] [she] gave in court?

9. Was it proved that the witness had been convicted of a crime?

10. Was it proved that the general reputation of the witness for telling the truth and being honest was bad?

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

********
A witness did not have to be impeached for the jury to find him not credibile. They could make their own conclusion as to GA being truthful.

Personally, my hinky meter was going off immediately. Over and over people ask what type of Mother in regards to Casey. What about what type of Father?

What type of Father does not tell his daughter to keep her mouth shut until she talks to an attorney? What type of Father secretly goes to LE to help them build a case against his daughter? What type of Father buys a gun the day his daughter is bonded out knowing a gun in the house will send her right back? What type of Father volunteers to the jury when his daughter is facing the death penalty that he now believes his daughter killed his granddaughter?

There is a HUGE difference between wanting your child to be held responsible for harming a granddaughter and wanting your daughter dead. Answering questions they ask you....of course. But voluntarily trying to help them make a case against your daughter in a death penalty state.

What type of Father does that?

Well In my opinion it would be one that fully believes his daughter killed his grand daughter. It doesn't add up for him to want her to get the death penalty if the death were in any way attributed to him or his actions. Sounds like a guy who lost his little grand baby and and was so disgusted with what he was sure his daughter did that he had completely given up on her, didn't even see her as his daughter anymore.

 

[GracieLu]

The time those statements were made was before Caylee was found. So, IF those statements were made, then it shows that he knew about the accident and wasn't alerting anyone (LE, media, Kid Finders, etc).

Per RC's testimony, she said GA said "I THINK it was an accident that snowballed out of control" not "IT WAS an accident that snowballed out of control." Huge difference!

 

[beccalecca1]

Per RC's testimony, she said GA said "I THINK it was an accident that snowballed out of control" not "IT WAS an accident that snowballed out of control." Huge difference!

KH: He had said it was an accident that snowballed out of control.

About 8 minutes into this video

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnKVcOQv0E&feature=related"]‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 2 - 6/30/11 (Crystal Holloway)‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WillChgo]

The time those statements were made was before Caylee was found. So, IF those statements were made, then it shows that he knew about the accident and wasn't alerting anyone (LE, media, Kid Finders, etc).

GA testified that he wanted to believe that Casey did not murder Caylee. Given the smell in the car he probably believed from the first day that the most likely scenario was that Caylee was dead and that Casey had something to do with it. At the same time he did not want to confront Cindy over this and IMO as he didn't know for sure, went along with the searching for Caylee.

Even if GA said to RC what she said he did this NOT prove that he KNEW it was an "accident that snowballed out of control," much less what kind of accident. Note that RC testified that GA responded this after she said something to the effect that she did not believe he could have raised someone that would harm or kill Caylee. Given that by then he knew that there was no Zanny and that Casey was not giving any explanations the more likely scenarios were: an accident or a homicide. His behavior suggest he clung to the hope of Caylee alive even if he didn't really believe this was likely.

No matter whether GA perjured himself or not, there was no evidence presented in the case that this was an "accident that snowballed out of controlled." Ironically the judge instructed the jury explicitly not to consider RC testimony as evidence of "an accident that snowballed out of control."

Unfortunately IMO it seems that this is exactly what the jury believed, all evidence to the contrary, and disregarding the judge's explicit instructions.

Baez was masterful in framing the story in ways that the jury was able to buy: "an accident that snowballed out of control," + "fantasy forensics + "dysfunctional family" = "reasonable doubt."

It was similar to, if a bit more complicated than Cochran's "if the gloves don't fit you must acquit" story in the OJ case. Now for OJ the jury took 4 hours, for Casey Anthony 10.

 

[jrb0124]

If she found Caylee drowned, how would she know she was gone beyond recovery? Unconscious people can be resuscitated. Everyone knows that. That's why 100% of people call 911 upon finding a drowning victim, as Dr. G testified.

This criminologist, and I'm sure all criminologists and most people in general, would disagree with Dr. G's unilateral "100%" assertion:

“It is not simply that it is a toddler’s death,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is that it’s a toddler’s unreported death. Whether it is accidental, intentional or something in between, when the death of somebody that young goes unreported to the authorities, the lack of reporting suggests that this is intimately linked to events involving the custodial parent. Sometimes it’s abuse. Sometimes it’s neglect. Sometimes it’s an accident.”
.
.
.
She recalled an Ohio case where a child died of a fever because the mother and stepfather did not take the child to a hospital. The mother agreed not to report the death, but wanted the body nearby, so they hid it in a crawlspace of the house.

[LINK]

You can nit pick about involving drowning, but the premise that in a toddlers accidental death its always reported, or that 911 is called 100% of the time is not only a non-scientific, non-expert opinion - its inaccurate.

ETA: IF the drowning story is true...its possible GA did attempt CPR (based on the defense story that Casey met him outside holding Caylee's body), and determined there was nothing that could be done to revive her.

 

[WillChgo]

This criminologist, and I'm sure all criminologists and most people in general, would disagree with Dr. G's unilateral "100%" assertion:

“It is not simply that it is a toddler’s death,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is that it’s a toddler’s unreported death. Whether it is accidental, intentional or something in between, when the death of somebody that young goes unreported to the authorities, the lack of reporting suggests that this is intimately linked to events involving the custodial parent. Sometimes it’s abuse. Sometimes it’s neglect. Sometimes it’s an accident.”
.
.
.
She recalled an Ohio case where a child died of a fever because the mother and stepfather did not take the child to a hospital. The mother agreed not to report the death, but wanted the body nearby, so they hid it in a crawlspace of the house.

[LINK]

You can nit pick about involving drowning, but the premise that in a toddlers accidental death its always reported, or that 911 is called 100% of the time is not only a non-scientific, non-expert opinion - its inaccurate.

ETA: IF the drowning story is true...its possible GA did attempt CPR (based on the defense story that Casey met him outside holding Caylee's body), and determined there was nothing that could be done to revive her.

I wasn't happy with the phrase 100% because it is not the way scientist usually talk. I am not sure but I also think she said 100% of accidental drownings not 100% of all accidents, and if I am right this makes a difference.

That being said, she is an expert, she has an opinion, an expert opinions are that- opinions not facts. Medical science is based primarily in observations. You can disagree with her opinions but they still remain expert opinions, based on her observations as a medical scientist.

I have yet to hear of a single case of non-negligent accident where it was not reported.

The example you provide of the Ohio case is NOT an accident. The child died of natural causes and with parental negligence by not taken the child to the hospital. It does not disprove Dr. G's statement.

To disregard Dr. G's statement it would help to have example of unreported accidents that are not due to parental negligence. Does Prof. Zimring provide any?

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

I'm well aware of that.....again, my point being that this jury gave more weight to a "theory" and they themselves speculated on what could have happened instead of weighing the evidence presented. while it would not be unreasonable to believe she could have drowned....there was no evidence before them upon which they could have inferred this. Again, a pic of Caylee with her hand on the door, a couple of pics with Caylee on the ladder? There was direct testimony to the contrary. No one testified that Caylee had ever previously attempted same. No one testified that Caylee had ever been out of anyone's sight long enough for something like this to happen. Hell, no one even testified as to what context that pic of her at the door was from? It could have been Caylee closing the damn door instead of opening it.

This jury did not follow the instructions, now the law that applied. Instead they inserted their own 'theory' of how it MAY have happened and rendered their verdict accordingly. They did not do their jobs, period.

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

respectfully..then please point out exactly what evidence you are referring to come to this conclusion.

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

so all of the lies Casey told her friends and family within those 31 days as to where Caylee was, along with the lies she continued to spew for the next 2 1/2 years....all of that weighed less heavily against one statement of GA's about seeing them leave that morning? one statement vs. 100's of lies?