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

[Kimberlyd125]

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

I'd like to see that too. I must have missed it.

I saw NO evidence she drowned in the pool. NONE

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

sorry, but you are way off on this. For those of us here that have followed this case since July 16, 2008, read hundreds of pages of depositions, reviewed thousands of pages of evidence, listened to hours and hours of hearings, motions, etc. and the fact that many of us WS here have legal backgrounds and the knowledge of how to apply the law....this is insulting.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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).

No it doesn't.
Even if he made those statements, it proves nothing.

All it proves is he made the statements. Not that they were factual statements.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

sorry, but you are way off on this. For those of us here that have followed this case since July 16, 2008, read hundreds of pages of depositions, reviewed thousands of pages of evidence, listened to hours and hours of hearings, motions, etc. and the fact that many of us WS here have legal backgrounds and the knowledge of how to apply the law....this is insulting.

There was so much we saw that the the jury was not allowed to see.

That's why most of us believe 100% that she killed Caylee.

After you see 3 years of evidence, it's hard to see her get away with murder. Because we all know that's what happened.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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

About 8 minutes into this video

‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 2 - 6/30/11 (Crystal Holloway)‬‏ - YouTube

Is this before or after JA pointed out the changes in her story from her statement/statements to the witness stand?

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

BBM...
but this is contradictory for the reasoning you used previously about Dr. Vass's analysis and testimony...that it wasn't 'proven' science, etc. and a jury isn't supposed to rely on something that's not in evidence. They can't speculate as to what may or may not have been found. The defense witness who testified said there wasn't enough DNA to give a full profile, and the marker she said was there, she admitted it was below the accepted standards. A jury is supposed to be able to try and discern fact from fiction...that's what they were there to do....not insert their beliefs, feelings, or speculation on how something may or may not have occurred. :maddening:

 

[Flossie JMO]

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?

JMO I don't think George saw them leave that morning. JMO Casey took off with Caylee the night of the 15th and killed her that night or in the early morning hours. JMO

 

[CuriousHousewife]

I think that Casey is guilty, BUT I do agree that because of the piss-poor prosecution and the lack of solid evidence with most of it being circumstantial and the evidence that was presented being peppered with plenty of "reasonable doubt" or at least what a jury would be instructed to agree falls under "reasonable doubt", there was no other verdict to be brought.

Having been on a 25 to life, 3rd strike jury that deliberated for almost three weeks and delivered a verdict I was not happy to have to agree with, I can say that sometimes it doesn't matter what you THINK happened, you have to follow the instructions and the letter of the law.

 

[Flossie JMO]

JMO I don't think George lied about the "affair", and I don't believe he ever touched Casey inappropriately. I feel quite badly for George, JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I think that Casey is guilty, BUT I do agree that because of the piss-poor prosecution and the lack of solid evidence with most of it being circumstantial and the evidence that was presented being peppered with plenty of "reasonable doubt" or at least what a jury would be instructed to agree falls under "reasonable doubt", there was no other verdict to be brought.

Having been on a 25 to life, 3rd strike jury that deliberated for almost three weeks and delivered a verdict I was not happy to have to agree with, I can say that sometimes it doesn't matter what you THINK happened, you have to follow the instructions and the letter of the law.

I disagree with your description of the prosecution. They did the best they could with what they had.

The lack of evidence was because Caylee was thrown in the woods and not found for 6 months. All the evidence washed away.

Lesson: Hide the body for as long as you can, get a DT that tells great "stories" and you can walk away free and clear.

 

[MissJames]

"Using observational data we know............."

She wasn't just guessing,but if anyone wants to hear what she actually said ,in it's entirety ,it starts at the 3:00.mark.

She goes on to explain . Listen carefully to the entire exchange.All I'm reading ,that posters came away with, is "100 per cent of accidents are reported" or "100 percent of drownings are reported"

I don't care what conclusions anyone comes to ,but at least get it right by listening to the actual exchange.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a7W4IE6dJI&NR=1"]‪Dr. G: People Always Call 911‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


BTW,somewhere in Krystal Holloway's (alias River Cruz) testimony she admits in her first interview or the depo,that she originally said Georges statement was prefaced by " I think...it was an accident........."

She also was insistant that they DID NOT have an affair in her LE interview.
You see ,she changed her story when it suited her. That's called lying. So maybe she killed Caylee. :waitasec:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Krystal Holloway (alias River Cruz) lied so many times, it's not even funny.
It was pointed out at the trial.
But, the jury believed her.

Go figure.

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

where is the logic, common sense and reasonable rationale to say this?
1. Going purely on what was presented at trial, what evidence or testimony was offered that showed and/or proved that GA lied about the affair throughout the whole investigation?
2. RC was questioned as to the context of how this alleged accident that snowballed out of control was discussed by JA. She testified that it was allegedly within the context of her and GA discussing how it was difficult it was for him to believe that he raised someone who could do such a horrid thing....but if he had to believe she did something, he believed it COULD have been an accident that snowballed out of control....her control.
3. based on his interviews, statements and depositions, GA was certainly suspicious of Casey's behaviors, and her whole nanny story. and that didn't change until December 11, 2008. there was no testimony at trial about them believing she was dead and still collecting $$.

 

[cmsg2002]

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?

the type of father than was doing his best to be honest about what happened even if that truth pointed back to his own daughter. using the logic above, would it be preferred that he lied about things that pointed to Casey....would that make him a better Father?

 

[cmsg2002]

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

About 8 minutes into this video

‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 2 - 6/30/11 (Crystal Holloway)‬‏ - YouTube

yes, if you watch her entire testimony, she says one thing to Baez and she says another to JA. her testimony in and of itself was contradictory....so shouldn't that have been a wash then? that's how you explained expert witness contradictory testimony in previous posts?

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

Dr. G's statement was that in her experience and those of her departments, that accidental drowings are 100% reported...because there is always some hope that the child can be resuscitated.

 

[cmsg2002]

JMO I don't think George saw them leave that morning. JMO Casey took off with Caylee the night of the 15th and killed her that night or in the early morning hours. JMO

I'd tend to agree with that...but both Cindy and George steadfastly denied this throughout the entire 3 years, so there was nothing or no one presented to prove otherwise.

 

[tennisgirlsc]

Dr. G's statement was that in her experience and those of her departments, that accidental drowings are 100% reported...because there is always some hope that the child can be resuscitated.

Exactly...because those people WANT THEIR CHILD TO LIVE!!!! :banghead:

 

[gngr~snap]

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?

~Respectfully snipped

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?

bbm
What father doesn't keep his shut as well?
*Well he did at first he didn't question her about anything!
a father that put duct tape on the gas can after 6/24 denied it and his grandchild would be found with duct tape as well.
a father that went to get a car he owned from the tow yard and didn't even phone to ask her if it even ran first? What if the transmission blew or the oil light was on? doesn't demand to know why he had not been told car in tow lot 2 weeks? Expect her to meet you there or pick her up to get "her car"? ask her to pay half?
a father that didn't call 911 or Casey to double check on Caylee. when he smelled the car. didn't demand Casey explain how that smell got there?
Fussed her out for leaving "trash" in trunk? Order her home to clean it up?
a father who is warned of his 22 yo old daughter's imminent arrest (being X LE) and didn't bother to find her an Atty immediately.
a father that stalked Jesse Grund for 6 weeks trying to blame him.
a father that had to be restrained and removed when a search warrant was served on Dec 20th 08
a father that would not give his DNA or finger prints willingly when asked.
a father who was advised by his son not to take a lie detector test.
a father that never bothered to pick up DVD copies of jail house visits to take home and review to help find Caylee when offered.
a father that after not seeing caylee for over a week sees her mom who is no longer living at home, but stole gas from him doesn't ask to get a name phone# address where she is staying with the child or where she is working at as a precaution *knows his daughter lives on the edge and doesn't ask if she needs anything for Caylee? just to make sure?
a father known to follow her in the past and known to follow x boyfriends after Caylee is reported missing doesn't find a way to follow her now? Based on his lack of information alone.
a father that said TL was a drug dealer and involved in prostitution-
to imply his daughter was what? sleeping around for her next high?
And after ALL this tells that daughter of his he would do ANYTHING to help her trade places with her???
People seriously think his testimony is what made her make up a terrible "lie" about him?
He had completely squashed her reputation in a few days to LE
Maybe it WAS true what he said about KC but he was NOT trying to look out for her safety in any way.
If he did it.- and she knows? She is lucky she is still alive.
which is the ONLY sliver of hope I have that he isn't involved.
GA would have never left a witness!!!
I have never met a man that would do this to a daughter and I hope I never do!
When it's about KC he let it flow from day 31- IMO he never saw her as innocent. He wasn't concerned about her. Not after the 16th.
He acted like a jealous boyfriend that had just been dumped!

 

[MissJames]

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

About 8 minutes into this video

‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 2 - 6/30/11 (Crystal Holloway)‬‏ - YouTube

Thank you for pulling up the video :seeya:
Around the 29 min mark JA refers to a note GA sent her saying he had been trying to reach her and left several messages for her with her daughter,security and her husband. She gets fidgety and instead of answering she says "I'm not married sir" .But of course JA goes on to show why GA would use the term husband.
Immediately after to about 33,JA impeaches KH aka RC,with the statement she made to LE under oath ,that she and GA DID NOT have an affair.

And can I just add how truthful she appears when JA questions her about her changing story and the timeline of selling it to the National Enquirer? She just screams of someone with honor and character (Not)

Immediately following is the exchange when JA refers back to her statement to LE under oath,when she told them GA said "I really believe it was an accident and things went wrong and she tried to cover it up".
Now this is where KH aka RC ,gets combative.

So GA is the liar and guilty of something.He was combative with JB so he must be guilty.

Krystal Holloway,who also goes by the name of River Cruz (nothing hinky about that ) is impeached by her previous sworn statement ,becomes angry and combative with JA during that exchange (isn't that what is being said about GA?) is the person that is believed . I guess changing her story when she got an offer from the National Inquirer is no reason for concern to anyone trying to get to the truth. Nothing hinky there.:crazy:

So George is the one they thought was lying and this <unusual person> was believable. :waitasec: