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

[Soulmagent]

I did the same thing. I made a few posts as to why I agreed with the verdict, and tried to be quite clear that my posts were my opinion only, in an effort to help the OP understand why I agreed. Of course, I have been posting my minority opinions here for nearly two years, so many may have me on their ignore list LOL, so I didn't get all the responses you have. I admire the way you have handled yourself and stuck to your guns. BTW I pretty much agree with all the posts you have made.

I do find it hard to understand that IF the duct tape was over the mouth and nose, and if the decomposition was done in two weeks, and after decomposition the duct tape was no longer sticky due to decomp fluids, and again this took place within two weeks, then as you say, if the only thing the duct tape was adhering too after two weeks was a hair matt, what was holding the mandible in place during Tropical Storm Faye, and during the dispersement by animals?

LOL Your not on my ignore list. I always enjoy reading your post.

I gave up on posting on this subject and unmarked most of the caylee threads from my list. I left this one because of the post of beccalecca1.

Thanks for trying to explain WHY WHY WHY Casey Anthony was not found guilty. Now if the jury members could explain it as well :waitasec:

 

[WillChgo]

You know, I originally posted on this thread to help the OP understand why I agree with the verdict. The OP appeared to truly want to understand this his/herself. 60+ pages later it doesn't seem like something to understand anymore. I don't feel open to state my opinions without the feeling of being attacked on them. And, I'm sure I'm not the only one with this feeling.

After reading the various posts in the thread I have a much better understanding of the thought process behind the jury's verdict. I thank you and others who posted here stating your views.

Any attempt to challenge your views and arguments was not meant. at least by me, as an attack, but as a desire for the type of deliberation I wish had occurred in the jury room.

 

[Missie]

You know, I originally posted on this thread to help the OP understand why I agree with the verdict. The OP appeared to truly want to understand this his/herself. 60+ pages later it doesn't seem like something to understand anymore. I don't feel open to state my opinions without the feeling of being attacked on them. And, I'm sure I'm not the only one with this feeling.

Thanks for your posts. I lurk all the time, but post very little for fear of being attacked. My husband knew nothing about the case at all and I made him watch the trial, but he agrees with the verdict. He was saying through the whole trial, that it wasnt not enough to convict, but they will still convict becasue of public opinion.

 

[cluciano63]

Thanks for your posts. I lurk all the time, but post very little for fear of being attacked. My husband knew nothing about the case at all and I made him watch the trial, but he agrees with the verdict. He was saying through the whole trial, that it wasnt not enough to convict, but they will still convict becasue of public opinion.

That is what I thought would happen too (conviction) but my husband said "they didn't prove anything, just gave a theory". All I know is when the state rested, I was shocked, as I was really waiting for the "kicker" so to speak. I kept thinking there was a Home Depot video I saw mentioned here, with her maybe buying incriminating items.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Nobody has been attacked here.

If anybody in this thread or any other thread here at WS feels attacked, click the triangle and report the post.

I have seen disagreement here, but I have not seen 1 personal attack.

JMO

 

[MarthaM]

I have seen disagreement here, but I have not seen 1 personal attack.

JMO

There most certainly have been personal attacks, but thankfully the mods here seem to be really really on top of things. My guess is that the offending posts were deleted before you even saw them. I'm sure I didn't see a lot of them before they disappeared, and I'm thankful for that. The ones I did see were enough.

 

[LinTX]

Thank you for posting this. I do stand corrected on the numbers according to this article. But, that still leaves 5/41 (12% probability) according to Vass' study and 4/86 (4.6% probability) according to Statheropoulos’ , which aren't great odds.

Nope, you cannot use the 41 & 86 as denominators because all but 5 of either number were excluded from the “select compounds of interest” that both studies found. There were 22 chemicals in common to both studies, but all but 5 were not definitive to decomp. The correct percentage of those select compounds would be 80% (4/5)...that's only 80% instead of 100% because the 5th compound Dr. Vass found was chloroform.

Snipped comments re: trash to save space here, but will comment on your post. Anaerobic means acting or occurring in an oxygen free situation. The bins that showed some levels of dimethyl sulfide were over packed in closed bins. The trash bag was not closed, per GA and the car park guy - they saw the pizza boxes through the top of the bags. But also, the trash bags had been removed when the air samples were taken from the trunk, not to mention the trunk having been aired out and most probably cleaned before the lab took the samples. Comparing the two situations wouldn't be as close as apples and oranges - think apples and giraffes.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There most certainly have been personal attacks, but thankfully the mods here seem to be really really on top of things. My guess is that the offending posts were deleted before you even saw them. I'm sure I didn't see a lot of them before they disappeared, and I'm thankful for that. The ones I did see were enough.

Oh well. I guess the mods were quick. Cause like I said, I've seen no personal attacks here.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

With all due respect you are probably in the minority by a long shot.
A majority of people on this board and in this country believe the Jury got it wrong either by not understanding what they had to do or just by being too lazy to do it. Personally I'm not here to attack opinions just debate them in a respectful way when I disagree with them.

In this forum, yes - in the country absolutely not.

2 polls came out, Gallup and USA Today..

Gallup/USA Today put out a joint, single poll. I can't find any others. Do you have a link to these polls?

One had only 56% of the country disagreeing with the verdicts

One had a bare 20% who "definitely" think casey is guilty

Even if that's true, how is 56% not a majority?

Nevertheless, these polls aren't very useful in judging the verdict validity without knowing how much of the trial the poll respondents watched. I doubt their sample watched as much as the population of this board.

 

[beccalecca1]

Nope, you cannot use the 41 & 86 as denominators because all but 5 of either number were excluded from the “select compounds of interest” that both studies found. There were 22 chemicals in common to both studies, but all but 5 were not definitive to decomp. The correct percentage of those select compounds would be 80% (4/5)...that's only 80% instead of 100% because the 5th compound Dr. Vass found was chloroform.

Snipped comments re: trash to save space here, but will comment on your post. Anaerobic means acting or occurring in an oxygen free situation. The bins that showed some levels of dimethyl sulfide were over packed in closed bins. The trash bag was not closed, per GA and the car park guy - they saw the pizza boxes through the top of the bags. But also, the trash bags had been removed when the air samples were taken from the trunk, not to mention the trunk having been aired out and most probably cleaned before the lab took the samples. Comparing the two situations wouldn't be as close as apples and oranges - think apples and giraffes.

I thought both Vass and Statheropoulos had come up with databases with the chemical compounds found in human decomposition (hence the 41 and 86 numbers). I'm pretty sure I remember someone asking Vass on the stand if he had a database of chemicals that are found in human decomposition, referring to this exact thing. So, if he chooses now, even though he's developed this database, that only 5 are the important ones, how can I see him as credible?

In regards to the trash thing, my post pointed out that the other study that was done, with 6 partitially filled bins in a controlled environment (50 F), less than 50% also tested positive for dimethyl sulfide. Did the researchers attempt to find out why those bins tested positive for that?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

That is what I thought would happen too (conviction) but my husband said "they didn't prove anything, just gave a theory". All I know is when the state rested, I was shocked, as I was really waiting for the "kicker" so to speak. I kept thinking there was a Home Depot video I saw mentioned here, with her maybe buying incriminating items.

All proofs are theories.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The defense had no obligation to prove their story beyond a reasonable doubt, or any story for that matter. They only had to sufficiently undermine the State's theory to the point that the pieces no longer fit beyond a reasonable doubt, and they did. The proof of that is the verdicts, returned by 12 citizens, complete strangers before the trial, who followed the jury instructions they were given.

Your "proof" is completely fallacious, premised on the absurd assumption that 12 people can't come up with a wrong verdict, as though every verdict ever decided has been decided correctly.

This is exactly the kind of fallacious thinking that I believe went into the "not guilty" verdict.

 

[Previous Admonitions]

posting thoughts here because not sure where else it should go ....

These facts are not in dispute:

1) Caylee Anthony died on or around June 16

2) Casey never reported Caylee missing or dead to authorities; told family only when pressed, after 31 days

3) Casey made demonstrably false statements to family, friends, and most importantly law enforcement about Caylee's whereabouts, never wavering from the lies for 6+ months

I think a lot of the issues about where people come down on this case are related to how much info can be drawn from the three facts above. To me, given those three facts alone, I am about 90 to 95% of the way to finding Casey criminally responsible for Caylee's death. Not necessarily murder, but something like manslaughter at a minimum.

The other evidence from the case (body in car, circumstances of disposal, duct tape, etc) would have been enough for me as a juror to convict on count 3 (agg manslaughter of a child), and likely felony murder as well. There were certain weaknesses with some aspects of the state's case (e.g. chloroform), but these represent a few trees in the forest of Casey's guilt.

The jurors and others defending the verdicts seem to want to isolate the lying and 31 days from the fact that her daughter was dead .... "lying is not murder", etc. The foreman implied that the 31 days weren't relevant: "That's something that, although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the coming down with the verdict with the indictments". http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...murder-verdict-jury-foreman/story?id=14059042

As if it wasn't evidence. But this is the definition of circumstantial evidence, they have an obligation to consider it. To consider why she would lie to police under intense interrogation, when given every opportunity to admit to an accident, benign or otherwise. And to consider why she would talk to her family the way she did in the first jailhouse phone call.

I can't help but think that if the circumstances were nearly identical, yet with a husband and a "missing" wife, a jury would have zero problem convicting. Wife not accounted for for days, weeks .... her parents try to get in touch by phone ... husband makes up stories about where she is ... finally confronted by the in-laws after a month, he "confesses" that his wife has been missing for a month, he's been conducting his own investigation. Etc, etc .... wife shows up dead, husband continues to tell demonstrable lies. Even with no clear motive (no mistress, no life insurance, no fighting) and no direct evidence, a jury would only need the slightest of circumstantial evidence to find this man guilty, I am 100% certain of this.

Point being, I think people find spousal killings easier to stomach, but have a natural reluctance to believe in the possibility of a mother killing her own child ... though it is unfortunately common.

Sorry for the rambling ... main point is maybe those defending the verdict, when considering 1), 2) and 3), don't get to 90-95% guilty (of something), like I do. Maybe it is 0% (irrelevant), maybe it is 25 or 50 or 75%. So the starting point is further back, the burden of proof in the circumstantial evidence has to be stronger for them.

 

[MarthaM]

... main point is maybe those defending the verdict, when considering 1), 2) and 3), don't get to 90-95% guilty (of something), like I do. Maybe it is 0% (irrelevant), maybe it is 25 or 50 or 75%. So the starting point is further back, the burden of proof in the circumstantial evidence has to be stronger for them.

That's an excellent point, and a good way for those on either 'side' to understand other views.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

One would assume in cases of a apparently dead toddler after: electrocution, ingesting adult strength medicine, falling from a height, suffocation with a plastic bag, backed over by a car...most parents would think a child could be resuscitated - which is why I don't put drowning in a different category.

The only reasons I can imagine that an accidental death would go unreported is if: the supervising adult (or adults) had reason to believe they would be legally implicated for negligence,

I doubt that since Dr. G's 100% number wouldn't have filtered to exclude negligent guardians. Her sample would have included various ranges of culpability behavior of the guardians, some more negligent than others.

afraid of the consequences (family/publicity) of accidental death vs 'missing', or something very illegal going on at the time in that place. All of those circumstances would involve less than sympathetic or loving supervisors/parents, probably some personality issues as well.

And then when you add in the fact that an accident wasn't admitted to even when facing a murder charge, it makes the accident even more unlikely.

When improbabilities compound like this, the improbability increase by multiples.

Hypothetical: not saying it happened this way, but I can imagine GA finding Caylee in the pool, dead for an hour, and knowing (via his experience in LE) that she was beyond resuscitation.

What experience by anybody would tell them a drowning victim was beyond resuscitation? He couldn't know how long she'd been dead for, unless perhaps the body was stiff, but that presumes nobody would have noticed she was gone for hours. If one sees an unconscious body, there's no sure way to know they can't be resuscitated without trying.

Of the hundreds of thousands of children classified as 'missing' in the United States - would you think its reasonable to believe that some of those children suffered an accidental death which was covered up by the parents who hid the body and simply reported the child as missing? I think that's reasonable.

Not in a case where a body is eventually found with duct tape around its mouth dumped in a swamp.

It's the TOTALITY of evidence that has be considered. You're looking at it piecemeal in isolation of the other evidence.

 

[pcrum12]

but if the duct tape wasn't used as a weapon, but instead slipped there from the elements, or was part of the burial process.......like the jury indicated....then what difference does it make that there may have been unidentified DNA on the tape?

IMO....it doesn't.

It could prove that someone other than Casey wrapped Caylee and used said duct tape to secure the bag/bags.

 

[pcrum12]

If they were all in the backyard with Caylee, there was plenty of immediate supervision and the video cannot be used as evidence of same as there is no context into when it was taken, what the circumstances were, maybe they were all going swimming shortly....you can't take one pic and paint the entire issue of whether the Anthony's were or were not religious in taking the ladder down. there was plenty of other testimony that showed exactly how safety-concious they were with Caylee around.

Originally Posted by beccalecca1
#1: There was no child-proofing measures taken to prevent Caylee from going in the back yard. There was no evidence or testimony that there weren't any child-proofing measures. This is speculation on your part.Actually LDB questions CA extensively about child proofing the home and she said it was but the picture showed no child proofing on that sliding door.

#2: Caylee could have gotten out of the cracked door in the photo if she was determined to go swimming. Could have, would have or should have...again no evidence was presented and again more speculation.
DT didn't have burden of proof but did put forth inferences through the photos and judge allowed.

#3: The pictures of Caylee with Cindy climbing the pool ladder was taken a year before and she could climb the stairs mostly by herself, after a year I'd think she could climb them all by herself. I do not recall any testimony from Cindy as to when that pic was taken, and again, lets remember that it was very obvious Cindy's testimony for the DT was colored by the fact that she was trying to help her daughter. if the jury wasn't taking that into consideration, then that's another fault of theirs. Again, Cindy DID testify that the photos of her and Caylee going in the pool was from a year prior to June 2008. But you are correct, she was trying to save her daughters life.

#4: I posted a video in this thread, a couple pages back, showing the A's in the backyard eating at their patio table. No one was swimming and no one was in swimming attire, and the pool ladder is attached in the background. Shows they were NOT religious in taking the ladder down.
If they were all in the backyard with Caylee, there was plenty of immediate supervision and the video cannot be used as evidence of same as there is no context into when it was taken, what the circumstances were, maybe they were all going swimming shortly....you can't take one pic and paint the entire issue of whether the Anthony's were or were not religious in taking the ladder down. there was plenty of other testimony that showed exactly how safety-concious they were with Caylee around. That video still impeaches Cindy's testimony that they ALWAYS took the ladder down.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You know, I originally posted on this thread to help the OP understand why I agree with the verdict. The OP appeared to truly want to understand this his/herself. 60+ pages later it doesn't seem like something to understand anymore. I don't feel open to state my opinions without the feeling of being attacked on them. And, I'm sure I'm not the only one with this feeling.

If by attack, you are referring to my post for example,

Ok. I'm not a 'magical thinker' though. If there was evidence of murder, why would I be here arguing the opposite?

I can't answer that without being censored.

Let me try an on-point response to that post and see if it can be moderation safe.

Ok. I'm not a 'magical thinker' though. If there was evidence of murder, why would I be here arguing the opposite?

The answer to "why" is shown by your comment itself. It's full of obvious fallacies:

1. "I'm not a 'magical thinker'"
This is declaring so as though the simple declaration is proof by itself that one is not so. If one were so, would one know it or admit it? Yet, you are offering that as though it's prima facie evidence so that others should believe it. (Not saying you are or aren't such a thinker, but that the statement indicates specious reasoning.)
2. "If there was evidence of murder, why would I be here arguing the opposite?"
a) This is a completely circular argument. It assumes that which it needs to prove, that you wouldn't argue otherwise if there were in fact evidence.
b) It assumes that your belief alone about the evidence is sufficient proof for the state of the evidence, while ignoring the obvious counter of the vast amount of people who believe otherwise. If your belief that there is no evidence is proof there is no evidence, then what to make of the belief of others who believe there is evidence? Only your belief counts?
c) The statement also mistakes "evidence" for "proof." Every individual piece of information or evidence in a case can be used to support one theory or another or support multiple theories at once. To say there is no "evidence" for murder is trivially false. There are individual evidences that support murder and/or that support some other scenario, the pertinent question is whether all the evidence together can support or prove murder over and beyond any reasonable doubt from any other explanation for the evidence. (The lack of recognition of this framing is I believe the fundamental flaw in the thinking of the jurors.)

So, what should one make of the fact that you have made this clearly spurious statement (one of several) in the same thread you arguing that those who agree with the verdict are engaging in competent analysis of the evidence? Do you think it lends credence to the (often claimed in this thread) reasonableness and thoughtfulness of the "not guilty" view? It doesn't prove others aren't reasonable, but it doesn't help the overall case, as others have said they agree with you on much and see you as a good role model for that view.

I can see why the kind of arguments I have just made can yield the reaction that they are an "attack" but it's an attack on arguments not the persons themselves, other than perhaps, and necessarily so, their rational performance as to this specific topic. But if you can't attack arguments, there can be no discussion unless everyone agreed.

Not everyone is a competent critical thinker on every topic, but not being a good critical thinker doesn't make someone dumb are deficient. One can be very successful in life and competent in various intellectual endeavors and still fail at proper critical thinking. Some are even good critical thinkers in many areas but fail in specific areas (usually involving an emotional or ideological factor). It's a specific skill that has to be learned and practiced, and whose methods go counter to many of our natural cognitive instincts. It's a skill that is not taught very well in schools. This is why people commonly believe all sorts of improbable and false beliefs, why they get conned by emails from Nigeria, why they believe in any number of grand conspiracy theories (including I would say "the George did it" conspiracy).

This is not meant to be harsh or insulting, but trying to give a view of the situation here as openly as possible.

 

[jrb0124]

Your "proof" is completely fallacious, premised on the absurd assumption that 12 people can't come up with a wrong verdict, as though every verdict ever decided has been decided correctly.

This is exactly the kind of fallacious thinking that I believe went into the "not guilty" verdict.

One can argue that evidence/testimony excluded or included unduly affected the verdict, but not that any verdict is incorrect.

The verdict is always "correct", because by its nature its a product of the jury. There is no right or wrong answer in an envelope that is compared to a jury decision.

If one disagrees with a verdict, that does not make the verdict incorrect. Anyone can be 100% convinced she is guilty (as are 20% of the people in this country) but that does not make her so.

Casey Anthony may not be innocent, but a jury found her not-guilty. Guilty or Not Guilty is determined in a court of law (or the court system at least) and nowhere else; therfore, she is not and never will be "proven" guilty. Let's not forget the distinction between the two.

 

[manatee]

posting thoughts here because not sure where else it should go ....

These facts are not in dispute:

1) Caylee Anthony died on or around June 16

2) Casey never reported Caylee missing or dead to authorities; told family only when pressed, after 31 days

3) Casey made demonstrably false statements to family, friends, and most importantly law enforcement about Caylee's whereabouts, never wavering from the lies for 6+ months

I think a lot of the issues about where people come down on this case are related to how much info can be drawn from the three facts above. To me, given those three facts alone, I am about 90 to 95% of the way to finding Casey criminally responsible for Caylee's death. Not necessarily murder, but something like manslaughter at a minimum.

The other evidence from the case (body in car, circumstances of disposal, duct tape, etc) would have been enough for me as a juror to convict on count 3 (agg manslaughter of a child), and likely felony murder as well. There were certain weaknesses with some aspects of the state's case (e.g. chloroform), but these represent a few trees in the forest of Casey's guilt.

The jurors and others defending the verdicts seem to want to isolate the lying and 31 days from the fact that her daughter was dead .... "lying is not murder", etc. The foreman implied that the 31 days weren't relevant: "That's something that, although it is disgusting, it is heinous, we weren't really able to take into consideration with the coming down with the verdict with the indictments". http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...murder-verdict-jury-foreman/story?id=14059042

As if it wasn't evidence. But this is the definition of circumstantial evidence, they have an obligation to consider it. To consider why she would lie to police under intense interrogation, when given every opportunity to admit to an accident, benign or otherwise. And to consider why she would talk to her family the way she did in the first jailhouse phone call.

I can't help but think that if the circumstances were nearly identical, yet with a husband and a "missing" wife, a jury would have zero problem convicting. Wife not accounted for for days, weeks .... her parents try to get in touch by phone ... husband makes up stories about where she is ... finally confronted by the in-laws after a month, he "confesses" that his wife has been missing for a month, he's been conducting his own investigation. Etc, etc .... wife shows up dead, husband continues to tell demonstrable lies. Even with no clear motive (no mistress, no life insurance, no fighting) and no direct evidence, a jury would only need the slightest of circumstantial evidence to find this man guilty, I am 100% certain of this.

Point being, I think people find spousal killings easier to stomach, but have a natural reluctance to believe in the possibility of a mother killing her own child ... though it is unfortunately common.

Sorry for the rambling ... main point is maybe those defending the verdict, when considering 1), 2) and 3), don't get to 90-95% guilty (of something), like I do. Maybe it is 0% (irrelevant), maybe it is 25 or 50 or 75%. So the starting point is further back, the burden of proof in the circumstantial evidence has to be stronger for them.

This is an excellent post that needs to be re-posted! Logical, unemotional and "SMART"! thank you :rocker: