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

[MissJames]

Yep...the very people (the media) that were branding Casey a killer TOT MOM may just be part of the reason she is FREE.

But I thought the jurors all said they really didn't watch Nancy Grace? How could she be responsible for what they decided?:waitasec:
You don't think they lied do you? :innocent:

 

[Leomoon80]

Here is a Radio Interview with a Cousin (removed) from Cindy's Family (she says)
She also says, there is already a "book on the way" with the family's version (G & C?)

I would not give that book much credance however, as it was shopped to the highest bidder for cash, as well.....it's obvious Cindy has perjured herself and now want to gain the graces and be back into Casey's life.

So why would we believe what they now will write with this in mind? Makes no sense to me to believe anything they say. Once a Perjurer, always a Perjurer?

http://krbe.com/portals/1/audio/rrshow/interviews/070611_CASEYANTHONY_familymember.mp3

 

[beccalecca1]

So far the only explanations to "help me understand" are complete speculation based on the Defense opening statement. They had nothing to back it up ,but I guess putting a lie out there is as good as putting out real evidence for some. Bad news for our Justice system IMO.
Anyone even notice that there was NO mention of molestion in the closing argument? That's because they had nothing and it was not supposed to be considered by the jurors.

In the meantime over 1,015,000 people have signed the petition for Caylee's Law ! :great: :woohoo:

I signed the petition, because I do believe her actions afterwards weren't morally correct. But, I do believe I've given my own explanation to why I believe the verdict is right, and I have backed up my opinion with some factual evidence (the decomp chemicals in the trunk, etc).

 

[MarthaM]

But I thought the jurors all said they really didn't watch Nancy Grace? How could she be responsible for what they decided?:waitasec:
You don't think they lied do you? :innocent:

I don't think the jurors lied about that.

But I do think that shows like NG's and all the other pre-trial publicity do affect the verdicts in high profile cases like this. They can lead a prosecution team to be somewhat overconfident, feeling assured that they have a solid case with so much public opinion on their side. They see the elements of their case playing out successfully in the media, after all, so why shouldn't they think the same would be true in a courtroom where they will be putting all of that together for a jury? And the defense can use the pre-trial media frenzy to strengthen their own presentation.

It can work the opposite way for each side, too, and it depends on each individual case. But in this case, I don't think the Nancy Grace's of the world did the prosecution any favors.

 

[pcrum12]

So far the only explanations to "help me understand" are complete speculation based on the Defense opening statement. They had nothing to back it up ,but I guess putting a lie out there is as good as putting out real evidence for some. Bad news for our Justice system IMO.
Anyone even notice that there was NO mention of molestion in the closing argument? That's because they had nothing and it was not supposed to be considered by the jurors.

In the meantime over 1,015,000 people have signed the petition for Caylee's Law ! :great: :woohoo:

My theory is NOT based on the OS. The OS just happened to match my theory. JA asked GA on the stand if he molested his daughter. Therefore it is a witnesses testimony in open court and on the record. And a jury is to consider and weigh every witnesses testimony and decide what weight to put on it, believe it all, believe some, or not believe any. I don't think anyone expected GA to admit it, lol. I sure didn't. Even if he had, most on this forum would just say he is lying to get Casey off lol. HHJP did rule that the DT could not include the molestation in their Closing Statement. But, I don't recall if he read a stipulation to the jury to not consider it. If you or anyone knows where I can find that I'd like to see it. TIA Regardless of my theory, I too, have signed that petition. Caylee's Law is great! And any insinuation that anyone who doesn't believe Casey is guilty of MURDER wouldn't want to sign it is ridiculous. Should our posts not "help you understand", you can simple move along to another thread instead of insulting the posters that have enjoyed the thread. As always, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself and everythin I post is My Own Opinion.

 

[MarthaM]

I signed the petition, because I do believe her actions afterwards weren't morally correct.

I'm still not sure what I think of Caylee's Law. I see a lot of problems with it, and am not sure that it's necessary. Right now I think it's something of a kneejerk response out of frustration with the verdict. I'm still thinking on this one.

 

[pcrum12]

But, even before the body was found she could have. She could have told LE during the interview at Universal that story and they would have went after GA.

she couldn't face it IMO

 

[angeleleven]

someone correct me if I'm wrong but i believe the evidence of drowning were the series of photos of Caylee climbing in the pool with little help a year before and the photo of her where she was allegedly opening the sliding glass door by herself

If I have a picture of my kids in a pool....and something happened to them....according to your theory.....the pictures in the pool would be evidence that they drowned.....and a picture by a door means they could open a door.

Still shots don't mean anything to me. If it were a live video that actually showed something happened, that would be different. JMO

 

[gladiatorqueen]

My theory is NOT based on the OS. The OS just happened to match my theory. JA asked GA on the stand if he molested his daughter. Therefore it is a witnesses testimony in open court and on the record. And a jury is to consider and weigh every witnesses testimony and decide what weight to put on it, believe it all, believe some, or not believe any. I don't think anyone expected GA to admit it, lol. I sure didn't. Even if he had, most on this forum would just say he is lying to get Casey off lol. HHJP did rule that the DT could not include the molestation in their Closing Statement. But, I don't recall if he read a stipulation to the jury to not consider it. If you or anyone knows where I can find that I'd like to see it. TIA Regardless of my theory, I too, have signed that petition. Caylee's Law is great! And any insinuation that anyone who doesn't believe Casey is guilty of MURDER wouldn't want to sign it is ridiculous. Should our posts not "help you understand", you can simple move along to another thread instead of insulting the posters that have enjoyed the thread. As always, I'm not speaking for anyone but myself and everythin I post is My Own Opinion.

Thank you for your post. I am Canadian so I haven't signed the petition, but I definitely would. I think it is an excellent law. I am also someone who agrees with the verdict.

 

[pcrum12]

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..

up until Jan 2010 (i think that's when)at least when she was sentenced with time served and 1 yr probabtion.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I'm still not sure what I think of Caylee's Law. I see a lot of problems with it, and am not sure that it's necessary. Right now I think it's something of a kneejerk response out of frustration with the verdict. I'm still thinking on this one.

Hi MarthaM:

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on what you see as the problems with the law. Thank you in advance!

 

[AnaTeresa]

I'm still not sure what I think of Caylee's Law. I see a lot of problems with it, and am not sure that it's necessary. Right now I think it's something of a kneejerk response out of frustration with the verdict. I'm still thinking on this one.

I agree - good concept, but perhaps may run into problems by being rushed into law. (This is discussed more thoroughly in that thread).

More general thoughts, not based on any particular post - The thing about this thread, it's to discuss theories or opinions of why people agree with the jury verdict, and possibly what the jury may have considered. We don't really know what went through their heads. But I do know that posters here at WS tend to put a lot of thought into things and think critically about something. There's no need to put down a theory because you disagree with it. Discuss, yes. Even criticize. But I would really hate to see people get nasty to each other over this. No one is stupid, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the verdict. I'm not a fan of the insinuations otherwise.

 

[MissJames]

I don't think the jurors lied about that.

But I do think that shows like NG's and all the other pre-trial publicity do affect the verdicts in high profile cases like this. They can lead a prosecution team to be somewhat overconfident, feeling assured that they have a solid case with so much public opinion on their side. They see the elements of their case playing out successfully in the media, after all, so why shouldn't they think the same would be true in a courtroom where they will be putting all of that together for a jury? And the defense can use the pre-trial media frenzy to strengthen their own presentation.

It can work the opposite way for each side, too, and it depends on each individual case. But in this case, I don't think the Nancy Grace's of the world did the prosecution any favors.

IIRC from what I've read here,NG always supported CA and GA ,yet public opinion seems to be against them.
And then there's those of us at WS who poured over the discovery,the LE interviews,the motions and the hearings,who came to the same conclusion .Guilty

 

[MarthaM]

I agree - good concept, but perhaps may run into problems by being rushed into law. (This is discussed more thoroughly in that thread).

The thing about this thread, it's to discuss theories or opinions of why people agree with the jury verdict, and possibly what the jury may have considered. We don't really know what went through their heads. But I do know that posters here at WS tend to put a lot of thought into things and think critically about something. There's no need to put down a theory because you disagree with it. Discuss, yes. Even criticize. But I would really hate to see people get nasty to each other over this. No one is stupid, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the verdict. I'm not a fan of the insinuations otherwise.

I don't remember putting anyone down with my comments. And the only reason I gave my opinion of Caylee's Law was that it had already been mentioned on this thread.

 

[MissJames]

I agree - good concept, but perhaps may run into problems by being rushed into law. (This is discussed more thoroughly in that thread).

The thing about this thread, it's to discuss theories or opinions of why people agree with the jury verdict, and possibly what the jury may have considered. We don't really know what went through their heads. But I do know that posters here at WS tend to put a lot of thought into things and think critically about something. There's no need to put down a theory because you disagree with it. Discuss, yes. Even criticize. But I would really hate to see people get nasty to each other over this. No one is stupid, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the verdict. I'm not a fan of the insinuations otherwise.

Several of the jurors have told us what they were thinking and it doesn't conform with jury instruction or the law.

I included links in this thead or you can go to Today's Current News thread

 

[pcrum12]

So judge Perry didn't actually rule that the defense presented enough evidence of the drowning theory that they could argue it in their closing?

Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm curious on this. I'm pretty sure that the SA objected on both molestation and drowning and judge ruled that molestation could not be used but drowning could be used. My next question is does anyone remember if the judge actually told the jury that they couldn't consider the molestation or was it just told to the dt and sa without the jury present that DT couldn't use it in closing statement? Anyone know where I can find that? I've tried to find in the DT Closing thread day 34 but I'm not seeing anythin about it.

 

[Duckley]

If I have a picture of my kids in a pool....and something happened to them....according to your theory.....the pictures in the pool would be evidence that they drowned.....and a picture by a door means they could open a door.

Still shots don't mean anything to me. If it were a live video that actually showed something happened, that would be different. JMO

or that she wanted to open the door - whether she could or not is a different story and you are right - doesn't porrve drowning

 

[AnaTeresa]

I don't remember putting anyone down with my comments. And the only reason I gave my opinion of Caylee's Law was that it had already been mentioned on this thread.

My response to you was only regarding Caylee's law, the second paragraph was more broadly directed. I'll go back and edit it to make that more clear.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Several of the jurors have told us what they were thinking and it doesn't conform with jury instruction or the law.

I included links in this thead or you can go to Today's Current News thread

We still don't know exactly what went through all their heads, nor what all was discussed in that room. Snippets of an interview don't fully give us a picture. Furthermore, my point was that this thread was for theories of WS posters and why they agreed with the verdict. Doesn't mean they have to coincide with each other. As far as I can tell, this thread isn't meant to belittle theories or opinions from members, whether they are pro/con verdict, and I was pointing that out. I like the discussion that's going on here and it's been far more polite than other threads. I'd hate to see the tone shift and lose out on hearing about interesting theories.

 

[MissJames]

We still don't know exactly what went through all their heads, nor what all was discussed in that room. Snippets of an interview don't fully give us a picture. Furthermore, my point was that this thread was for theories of WS posters and why they agreed with the verdict. Doesn't mean they have to coincide with each other. As far as I can tell, this thread isn't meant to belittle theories or opinions from members, whether they are pro/con verdict, and I was pointing that out. I like the discussion that's going on here and it's been far more polite than other threads. I'd hate to see the tone shift and lose out on hearing about interesting theories.

It Also says" help me understand". I think listening to the jurors and where they made mistakes ,helps us understand the verdict.JMO
We don't know everything and we never will,but the statements some have made,shows error in concluding NG