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

[goldenlover]

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?

I will never understand his actions. As a former LE person, he should have known to tell Casey not to speak to the police or go with them until she had an attorney with her. He called his attorney friend for himself, why not for his daughter? Also on the jail tapes he was trying to get KC to get a meeting with him alone that was not taped. Do your remember that? Where she was telling Cindy she chose George for the meeting becaue they had become closer since this happened.

 

[cluciano63]

IMO, the jury had the right to toss out all testimony by George, Lee and Cindy, due to lies by some and questionable actions or inactions of others. They had the right to choose one expert over another, or disregard the testimony of both experts on any issue. And that would not leave much more than Casey not reporting her child missing, lying to police about it, and partying before it became known. Even the items found with Caylee could only be tied to the home, where everyone, including those witnesses who the jury did not/may not have believed, had access. Since it seemed to be physically impossible for an Anthony to answer a simple question, one could conclude that knowledge of and possibly participation in Caylee's death was spread out among the entire family.

Since she was not charged with non-reporting or negligence, they found her guilty for her lies. Sorry to say, I can see how they came to this decision, and the state and the public can thank the Anthony family, IMO, for their behaviors before, during and after June 16th, everything from enabling Casey, to cleaning out the car, to accusing other people to finally behaving like double agents on the witness stand.

JMO

 

[pcrum12]

You are within your rights to speculate and assume.The Jurors were not presented with any evidence whatsoever that Caylee drowned in the pool. They were presented with evidence that Caylee could possibly open a door, go outside,and could confidently climb a ladder while assisted by an adult. Like most children Caylee's age,she could open a door and go outside. Perhaps she was abducted? Perhaps she ran out in the street and was struck by a car?We are allowed to let our minds run wild with possibilities. The Jurors were instructed to base their deliberations only on the evidence presented to them during the trial. They were instructed not to speculate. There was no evidence presented in Court that supports a drowning theory.

Judge ruled that the evidence the DT provided to drowning theory was enough to infer she could have drowned, IIRC. DT does not have to prove. PT has burden of proof of their theory and it was refuted. IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Snipped to answer this question.

A lot has already answered your questions, but I wanted to specifically show you how the Anthony's DIDN'T take the ladder down after swimming. Watch the video below, around 1:35 you can see everyone is outside in clothing (not swim suits, etc) and the ladder is attached. Caylee looks old enough to be running around in the back yard, yet no precautions were taken on that day. Pretty easy to assume precautions weren't always taken.

‪Who is Momtective? Caylee at home video‬‏ - YouTube

As to whether she's old enough to walk around or that somebody else wasn't in the pool, you are just speculating. That is not evidence nor a reasonable inference.

 

[cmsg2002]

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!

I respectfully disagree 110% with all of the above!

 

[pcrum12]

You make very good points. If this was the only evidence presented in the case it would be reasonable doubt.

But non-negligent death in the pool is not consistent with:

(1) Not calling 911
(2) Not reporting it for 31 days
(3) Hiding the body in the trunk
(4) Putting 3 pieces of duct tape on a dead body.

IMO if you connect all the dots, non-negligent death in the pool makes no sense, hence there is no reasonable doubt of at least manslaughter.

Your list above is correct IF you don't take the dysfunction and molestation in to account. You've gotta agree that the family is really really dysfunctional and all of them lie and cover up. IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

So, as you can see above in red, I've refuted your circumstances with my own and I would assume that the jurors did the same. All JMOO

All your responses are speculations about possibilities, and not reasonable objections. And none of them refute my claim that each circumstance would be improbable and taken together much more improbable. I didn't say it was impossible she accidentally drowned, just highly improbable. But not being impossible does not equate to reasonable doubt.

This is how the jury instructions described reasonable doubt:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.

What you have described in asserting Caylee may have accidentally drowned in light of all the contradicting evidence is precisely such a speculative doubt.

I believe the jury likewise had misconceptions about reasonable doubt. In their interviews, they are bringing up mere alternate possibilities and equating them with reasonable doubt. Anything is always possible. A Martian could have teleported Caylee from her bed into the pool. A man walking buy the house could have walked in and taken Caylee and put her in the pool. Being possible is not the same as being plausible or reasonable.

 

[cmsg2002]

I will never understand his actions. As a former LE person, he should have known to tell Casey not to speak to the police or go with them until she had an attorney with her. He called his attorney friend for himself, why not for his daughter? Also on the jail tapes he was trying to get KC to get a meeting with him alone that was not taped. Do your remember that? Where she was telling Cindy she chose George for the meeting becaue they had become closer since this happened.

wait one cotton-picking minute....why wouldn't he want his daughter to talk to LE...KC told everyone that Caylee had been kidnapped and was alive and needed to be found! KC had an Baez within a day or 2 at most. And KC was arrested for lying to LE after her little excursion to Universal. The meeting on the jail tapes was an attempt to get KC to tell him and LE where the hell Caylee was, because they all knew she had info....but Baez had been preventing him for assisting with the search.

 

[Littleone48]

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:

IIRC she called/went back to LE to tell the truth before the National Inquirer and she testified to this when IIRC JA was questioning her.

 

[cmsg2002]

Your list above is correct IF you don't take the dysfunction and molestation in to account. You've gotta agree that the family is really really dysfunctional and all of them lie and cover up. IMO

I would say 80% of families are dysfunctional....and dysfunction isn't an excuse or a reasonable doubt....and guess what...people lie on the stand every day in every court in this country. The juries job was to review and evidence, discern fact from fiction, determine credibility of testimony, etc. With 6 weeks of testimony, dozens of witnesses, hundreds of pieces of testimony.....they did all that in less than 10 hours?

 

[cami]

I still can't comprehend how a defence made up of lies gets a killer off. I'm still shaking my head on that one

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Your list above is correct IF you don't take the dysfunction and molestation in to account. You've gotta agree that the family is really really dysfunctional and all of them lie and cover up. IMO

So a side effect of being molested is not calling 9-11 when your daughter drowns? Based on what??

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Your list above is correct IF you don't take the dysfunction and molestation in to account. You've gotta agree that the family is really really dysfunctional and all of them lie and cover up. IMO

Dr. G testified that 100% of cases of drowning victims they studied, someone called for help. That 100% wasn't screened for non-dsyfunctional families only. Within that 100% of people who found the victim, would presumably be a range of characteristics, from very negligent to very responsible, from very dysfunctional to very functional, from very dishonest and secretive to very honest and open. Yet in every case, someone did call 911, because for other than those that want the victim to die, that's everyone's first reaction.

 

[grammieto5]

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.

Would you please list this evidence? Thanks

 

[pcrum12]

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.

Good memory beccalecca1. I forgot about that!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

There was no medical or forensic evidence of a drowning, and since George denied it and Casey never said that happened, even when specifically asked as was brought out in testimony, and she didn't testify that is what happened, what evidence are you talking about?

A pool being in the house is not evidence she drowned, anymore than a piano in a house is proof someone played the Moonlight Sonata on it last night.

<modsnip>.

 

[pcrum12]

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.

respectfully disagree with most of your post. I really imo don't agree that it was some big conspiracy with this jury that led to a Not Guilty Verdict. The SA just did not prove the case. As to the affair, IMO it was important to get the affair in to show that GA was intimate enough with KH to have told/confessed to her "It was an accident that snowballed out of control". Which, went to DT theory of an accidental drowning.

 

[pcrum12]

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.

I don't think she was even charged with child neglect. Anyone have a link to the indictment?

 

[Flossie 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.

ITA. And IMO this was what they covered up. JMO

 

[pcrum12]

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.

Exactly.