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

[beccalecca1]

Going out a couple of nights?? For real? When is 31 days and nights considered a couple of nights?

There is zero evidence, none, nada that she is a victim of abuse. That so called expert never reviewed Casey personally. Anyoen can find an expert to say anything they want them to say. Where's the proof?

I would say that many convicted criminals were victims of abuse of some form or another,should they all get a pass too?

There was no evidence to reflect her partying it up for 31 days straight. None. She was going out on the Fridays at Fusion, and I'm not sure if there were any other times in between (I'm assuming there was at least 1 or 2). But, she didn't party it up for 31 days.

The expert was a grief expert, not a sexual abuse expert. Her purpose there was to show what she has experienced as grief in people. How they behave, etc. She painted a picture of Casey when talking about young 20 something who grieve. She then went on to say that it was unhealthy grieving, but it is grieving still.

I watched this trial with eyes that didn't have so much emotion invested. I wanted to try to see if I'd convict her if I was on the jury. After the prosecution rested, I knew there'd be no way unless the defense made a mistake and introduced more evidence for the prosecution's side. By the end of trial, I figured the exact same thing as the jury did. She didn't murder her child, she didn't accidently kill her child, she didn't abuse her child. She lied. That was all I could see. Besides her having an abnormal thought process.

 

[logicalgirl]

Everything you just typed was presented by the State. You appear to completely disregard any evidence or testimony presented by the Defense. It was NEVER up to the Defense to prove her innocent. It was up to the State to prove her guilty.

Yes, those are the "facts" the State presented. However, the defense through cross and the case they presented disputed the body in the trunk, the duct tape being the muder weapon, that Casey was the only person who it could be. That provided testimony to show that Casey's actions were not a result of Caylee's death. For her, for her family, that was normal behavior in that family.

The jury weighed the testimony and evidence according to the instructions they were given and determined that the STATE DID NOT PROVE ALL THOSE FACTS.

Hence, the jury brought the only verdict they could legally bring.

Ah yes, but they didn't bring in evidence I agree, and didn't need to but instead they stooped to theories of a salacious nature and innuendos in their opening statements - and it worked! What is most discussed in this forum post verdict? Well the facts surrounding GA abusing CA of course.

There isn't now and there never has been one shred of evidence that either Lee or George sexually abused ICA. The only person who hinted it is a habitual liar who lies even when she doesn't have to.

But apparently to some that doesn't matter....

The jury was expected to apply common sense and totality to this case as was done in the Scott Peterson trial, where there was much much less circumstantial evidence.

 

[CathyR]

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution. I just heard Jane Valdez Mitchell ask what the rest of America saw that the jury did not and I have one simple answer the MEDIA. The media hates her and painted her in every negative light they could find. I was so sick of hearing about all the partying and other inappropriate activities. I swear if Nancy Grace could get her on they would interview a playmate from kindergarten who says Casey didn't play nice and took her Barbie doll away. Nancy would twist this into a symptom of a killer in the making. The most important element INTENT was not proven. The DP was off the table then.

 

[Nova]

I agree, beccalecca1. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. I think the doubts presented in this case were such that they would affect a reasonable person's determination.

I thought there was reasonable doubt. Does that make me a crazy, fantastical story believing person? I understand that people are frustrated with the verdict, but sometimes this belittlement of the jury's determination bleeds over us posters who agree with the verdict. Each of us has our own dirty lens that we see this case through. Is it so hard to accept that all of us may be rational, intelligent, critical thinkers but see the evidence in this case through our own perspectives? A different opinion is not a wrong opinion.

Beautifully put, Ana. I don't think most of us doub the jurors were intelligent (relative to average) or rational. It's the "critical thinking" that's hard to understand.

Hearing jurors echo the opening statements by the defense as if that were evidence makes it hard to believe there was a lot of critical thinking going on.

I can certainly understand concluding that the evidence for 1st degree simply wasn't there. (Computer searches from three months prior do not scream "premeditation" to me. I don't even pretend to know how the duct tape got where.)

But one is forced to conclude that Caylee Anthony died during a small window of time and while under her mother's care. Given the ensuing cover-up, I don't see the critical thinking that concludes that death is anything but aggravated child abuse or manslaughter.

 

[Nova24]

Are you talking about Mustang Sally? She argued that any behavior at all could be described as "grieving". Anything at all.

Or maybe instead of grieving she was out partying and getting a tattoo because she was thrilled her baby was dead. She could just party away and all the attention would be back on her with the baby gone. She's pure evil.

 

[Nova24]

It's the "critical thinking" that's hard to understand.

Hearing jurors echo the opening statements by the defense as if that were evidence makes it hard to believe there was a lot of critical thinking going on.

concludes that death is anything but aggravated child abuse or manslaughter.

If they had found her guilty of ACA or Agg Man I don't think there would have been a ton of outrage. She would have gotten 34 years and many would have been fine with that. Instead we are left with a jury who the more they talk the clearer it becomes they didn't understand their role or the jury instructions and didn't bother to get clarification.

 

[leophoenix]

Not if she was a victim of abuse. And, I believe the expert testified that was the normal form of grieving for a early 20 something. I'm sorry. I just don't see going out a couple nights "unfeeling".

Oh you mean Sally ******? The lady that said all emotion is a example of grief? The whole time she was on the stand I kept expecting her to put in an order from the sidebar. The one that was proven not to have any insight into the case at all?

If she was a victim of abuse (no proof) why not a school counselor or a friend she told or even a psychiatrist that checked her out recently and not some <mod snip> lady that tries to cheer people up?

 

[Nova]

If they had found her guilty of ACA or Agg Man I don't think there would have been a ton of outrage. She would have gotten 34 years and many would have been fine with that. Instead we are left with a jury who the more they talk the clearer it becomes they didn't understand their role or the jury instructions and didn't bother to get clarification.

Maybe I'm not listening to the right stations, but I'm surprised we aren't hearing more about the effect of sequestration on jurors. After the OJ criminal trial, there was quite a bit of talk about how jurors who are locked away from the world (even if the hotel is nice) tend to feel like prisoners of the system themselves and are more like to blame the State for keeping them locked up.

I'm not saying that happened here. But I have to wonder if the jurors, deliberating on a major national holiday, weren't in a hurry to go home. (The actual deliberation time--11 hours IIRC--isn't a problem for me. Although I will say that for the murder trial on which I was a juror (much simpler facts than this case) testimony lasted about 2/3 as long and yet we deliberated for an entire week. ETA: we were NOT sequestered.)

 

[Uicipher]

If they had found her guilty of ACA or Agg Man I don't think there would have been a ton of outrage. She would have gotten 34 years and many would have been fine with that. Instead we are left with a jury who the more they talk the clearer it becomes they didn't understand their role or the jury instructions and didn't bother to get clarification.

Of all the reasons people give this one bothers me the most. Imagine you sacrificed 6 weeks of your life to the state, and as a result of serving you received:
Shady media coverage calling you a dope by the Nancy Grace crowd.
Not welcome signs posted around town.
Death threats.

How would you feel?

 

[beccalecca1]

Oh you mean Sally Vodka? The lady that said all emotion is a example of grief? The whole time she was on the stand I kept expecting her to put in an order from the sidebar. The one that was proven not to have any insight into the case at all?

If she was a victim of abuse (no proof) why not a school counselor or a friend she told or even a psychiatrist that checked her out recently and not some kooky lady that tries to cheer people up?

I'm sorry... I wouldn't call someone with her level of education and her service to society <mod snip>. Further more, I wouldn't find myself calling her <mod snip>. Maybe that's just me.

 

[pcrum12]

Is it possible that JB thought in good faith he would be able to bring in evidence to prove his OS, only to have the evidence he sought to bring in disallowed by HHJP? There were numerous side bars, could JB have asked at these sidebars to have evidence allowed in, and the pt objected and HHJP agreed with the pt and didn't allow it in?

There were proffers of both JG (made when they were engaged) and TL about statements she had made to them about molestation and abuse but HHJP did not let them in. Jury never heard it. They were between a rock and a hard place. Anyone she told was hearsay other than the perp or the defendant. Perp's NOT gonna get on the stand and admit it whether he did it or not. Casey taking the stand would be the last thing any DT would suggest their client do. JMO

 

[pcrum12]

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/natio...-sexual-abuse-claims-barred-from-closing.html

Before closing arguments began Sunday, Judge Belvin Perry said that there is no proof that sexual abuse occurred.

"There's absolutely no evidence the defendant was sexually molested by her father or her brother," the judge said.

Thanks. He did say it out side the jury's presence. But JB also argued the following as well: *from same article)

The defense claims that Caylee drowned accidentally in the Anthony family pool. They claim that Casey Anthony's father, George Anthony, helped dispose of the body and that Casey Anthony hid her child's death in the same way she hid years of alleged incest.

Defense attorney Jose Baez attempted to counter Perry's ruling by arguing that testimony throughout the trial could leave jurors with the inference that abuse occurred. Baez argued the fact that paternity tests were done on George Anthony and her brother Lee Anthony to determine if they might be Caylee's father, and that Casey Anthony did not visit a gynecologist until she was 19 were indications that abuse occurred.

"There was also evidence about Ms. Anthony's sexual background and behavior. It's also common knowledge that people who are victims of sexual abuse often grow up to be promiscuous and have issues about the boundaries of sexual activity...lying...compartmentalizing...all of these issues were testified to and all of them are consistent with those who have been sexually abused," Baez argued.

Perry retorted, "Did Mr. Lee Anthony testify? Did anyone by chance ask Mr. Lee Anthony whether or not he creeped into his sister's room day or night and attempt to molest her?"

George Anthony denied on the witness stand that he molested his daughter, but neither the prosecution nor the defense asked Lee Anthony about molesting his sister.

 

[pcrum12]

re: Judge Perry stating absolutely no evidence of sexual abuse.

I wanted to point out, the psychologist could believe she was sexually abused. The psychologist was examining her to see if she was fit to proceed with trial - her overall mental state at that time. Judge Perry was basing his determination of the evidence and testimony before the court. There could be plenty of evidence of sexual abuse that was not let in because of the rules of evidence. Furthermore, that psychologist could even say, "Yes, she's displaying all the signs of an incest survivor" - but that does not necessarily render her unfit to stand trial. The psychologist determination is not tied at all to Judge Perry's determination on whether sexual abuse could be discussed in closing. They're two unrelated things.

Jeff Ashton himself told the news reporter there was. He comes on a 4:30min (ish)

When asked if he was surprised by JB opening statement...

"We had known that through some discovery in the case which was sealed from public view because of the Gr - the ah, the nature of it. So we knew that"

ETA: JB chose not to bring it in...
[ame]http://video.foxnews.com/v/1041513351001/casey-anthony-prosecutor-reflects-on-trial-verdict/?playlist_id=87485[/ame][/QUOTE]

Very telling imo

 

[AnaTeresa]

Amazing! Your're a lawyer now? You understand the Jury instructions better than the Jury members?

Of all the reasons people give this one bothers me the most. Imagine you sacrificed 6 weeks of your life to the state, and as a result of serving you received:
Shady media coverage calling you a dope by the Nancy Grace crowd.
Not welcome signs posted around town.
Death death threats.

How would you feel?

While I agree with your point, I don't think there's a need to be nasty about it. We've got plenty of people here at WS with legal experience, and s/he may be one of them. If those of us who believe the verdict was correct want to be treated respectfully, we need to do the same to others who believe the verdict should have been guilty.

 

[Uicipher]

While I agree with your point, I don't think there's a need to be nasty about it. We've got plenty of people here at WS with legal experience, and s/he may be one of them. If those of us who believe the verdict was correct want to be treated respectfully, we need to do the same to others who believe the verdict should have been guilty.

You're correct I shouldn't have posted the first line, and I apologize.

 

[Nova]

Of all the reasons people give this one bothers me the most. Imagine you sacrificed 6 weeks of your life to the state, and as a result of serving you received:
Shady media coverage calling you a dope by the Nancy Grace crowd.
Not welcome signs posted around town.
Death threats.

How would you feel?

Actually, I was a juror on a murder trial that lasted almost as long (5 weeks).

It wasn't nearly so high profile; in fact, there was one whole newspaper article about the verdict. But in that article the defense attorney said we were obviously a bunch heartless, maybe even racist, white people who didn't understand how hard it was for inner-city blacks such as his client.

After 5 weeks of testimony and a week of deliberations so heated that some days the process dissolved into screaming and pounding on the table, I felt like I had been socked in the jaw when I read the defense attorney's remarks.

What he didn't know was that throughout deliberations the three African-Americans on the jury had been the hardliners. By far.

So, no, it isn't pleasant to be attacked after you've sacrificed your time and money to serve on a jury. But that's part of being a grown up and a citizen in a democracy.

 

[manatee]

Actually, I was a juror on a murder trial that lasted almost as long (5 weeks).

It wasn't nearly so high profile; in fact, there was one whole newspaper article about the verdict. But in that article the defense attorney said we were obviously a bunch heartless, maybe even racist, white people who didn't understand how hard it was for inner-city blacks such as his client.

After 5 weeks of testimony and a week of deliberations so heated that some days the process dissolved into screaming and pounding on the table, I felt like I had been socked in the jaw when I read the defense attorney's remarks.

What he didn't know was that throughout deliberations the three African-Americans on the jury had been the hardliners. By far.

So, no, it isn't pleasant to be attacked after you've sacrificed your time and money to serve on a jury. But that's part of being a grown up and a citizen in a democracy.

and being a human being in a social environment. no matter what you decide your friends, family and acquaintances will want an explanation. no one lives in a vacuum. decisions and actions have consequences so make decisions you can back up with facts and decisions you can defend.

 

[pcrum12]

Both George and Cindy Anthony were impeached during the case. Fact - they lied. Cindy testified the last time she saw Caylee was the night before, June 15George testified the last time he saw Caylee was June 16 when she left with Casey. Three people in that house. With both Cindy and George being impeached, when was the last time Caylee was seen alive? Who was responsible for Caylee the last time she was seen alive?

The evidence was not lies or mistakes....it was the State only putting on evidence to support their theory.

The 84 chloroform hits was the Canadian guy who had a new computer program to sell to police. The State used that report because it supported their theory better. The State decided not to use the report prepared by the State's own crime guy which showed chloroform had only been searched one time and myspace had 84 hits.

In a nutshell, the State did what they usually accuse the defense of doing. The State found experts outside their own people who would testify to what supported their case the best. While the defense used the State's very own "employees" as well as FBI employees to counter most of the States evidence.

It would not have helped if Dr. Vass was a chemist. Because his research has not been verified by other scientists. So you have Dr. Vass with an unproven "method" get a extremely high reading of chloroform from "air" while scientists using proven methods cannot find enough chloroform in the lining to explain the air levels.

The State put the guy on to talk about the blow fly "leg" and the "gnats" to show a body was in the car. However, the defense shows that a blow fly "leg" is nothing if there was a dead body and it was all contained in the trash. You know that trash that was in a dumpster for while before it was picked up.

The smell in the car could or could not be true. Yes, some smelled it But those who smelled it had already been told there was a smell. So did they really smell it? Or did they expect to smell that horrible smell that the minute they even think of it, they smell it when there is nothing there? The police officers who did not know there was a smell of decomp in the car, did not smell it either in the car or in the garage. Yes, the smell should have been in the garage from Cindy opening the trunk.

The only "evidence" of the duct tape on the mouth was the "location" below the skull with the hair attached. However, the State themselves presented evidence that animals had scattered the bones. The defense presented testimony from Cindy and Lee that it was normal in that family to buy beloved pets in garbage bags with duct tape. It is a reasonable possibility when the animals were scattering the bones, the hair got stuck to the duct tape at that time. Despite the residue still being there to hold the hair to the tape, there was not even one little skin cell to show the tape was ever attached to Caylee's skin.

So while you believe everything the State presented. It is reasonable that the jury believed the "doubt" raised by the defense either through cross or testimony.

Great job explaining what I've been trying to say lol. Totally Agree!

 

[1tasha]

You actually don't need to be a lawyer to interpret jury instructions. That's why they call them... So are those who are defending the verdict watching the interviews with the jurors? Because it doesn't seem that you all are on the same page.

 

[logicalgirl]

--The owner of CacheBack "the guy from Canada" was the one who testified to the chloroform search of 84 times. Not someone from Gentiva (who only testified about CA's work computer activity, Patient record updates, etc). The FBI computer analyst is the one who ran the first report with 1 search of chloroform, and decided to attempt to use CacheBack since it was a newer tool for them, and CacheBack wouldn't work for him. So, he involved the owner to get the report to work, and it took the owner 3 days to get it to work. He then came up with 84 times for chloroform. Uh huh - right way around - you are correct - so are you saying there actually were 84 separate searches? That CA did not do? Thought so.

--If you Google blow fly, you'll see that not only do they feed off of human remains, but they feed off of other food products (IIRC leafy vegetables is one thing they eat). Plus, the expert testified that he just found a blow fly in his house a few days before his testimony, and he wouldn't be surprised to find many in the corners of the courtroom. Are you suggesting that there's human decomposition in his home and the courtroom? Move on in Mr. Huntington's testimony - he agreed with his mentor's opinions despite his earlier attempt to make a name for himself.

--The initial LE who arrived testified to walking in and out of the Anthony's home through the garage, right next to Casey's car. They didn't use the front door. The should've smelled decomp, but they didn't. Plus, on top of that, Cindy had already notified 911 that the car "smelled like a dead body"; so in a missing child case, wouldn't it be important to look at the car that smells like a dead body? I'm guessing (and it's probably accurate), that someone asked about the smell and was satisfied with the rotting garbage answer. Human decomp is suppose to be very distinct, so even if you've never smelled it before, you should recognize that it's an odd smell and not just rotting garbage. And, from what I understand, the first time you smell it it just sticks with you. I'm guessing you don't have to have an "expert nose" to know what that smells like. IMO I have been fortunate to never smell it but the car was parked in the street when the LE arrived. It was determined without question there was only trash in the trunk - no garbage.

--Finally, I thought the duct tape was only attached to one side of the hair mat, the rest of the tap was lying on the ground near the other side, but not attached. Looking at it, it would appear to have wrapped around the skull, but it wasn't actually wrapped around. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got at trial.

You are. It was holding the mandible in place. One piece of tape wouldn't do it.