If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why

[annalia]

What I cannot understand is, ones who want to say that George or someone else was involved in what happened to Caylee, really need to stretch the imagination in finding scenarios that could include others, while at the same time dismissing what has been right in front of them, with all of Casey's actions, pointing to her guilt and only her guilt.

I also cannot understand accusing others of basing their opinions of casey's guilt on emotions when there isn't a real shred of real evidence pointing to anyone else's involvement, except perhaps a dislike of George as a person.

There isn't a scintilla of evidence that points to a drowning excpet for the DT opening statement. Same goes for george's involvement.

Why stop with George, why not accuse Lee and Cindy too, they all had access too, they all lied, Cindy lied more than george.

I realize we are all entitled to our opinions and nothing that any of us think will change what's happened but some things really seem to lack sense.

JMHO

 

[annalia]

According to his testimony (and his deposition), the gas cans were stolen on the 24th, he reported them on the 24th (because he was going to mow his lawn), he then met CA at the bank to deposit his tax return, and then received them back on the 24th from KC after returning home from the bank. He didn't proceed to mow his lawn that day because he had to work.

He was then questioned if he ever used the gas cans again, which he stated no. He was then questioned how he put gas in his lawnmower, and he stated he purchased new gas cans. When asked why he purchased new gas cans if he had his old ones in his possesion, he stated he didn't have them in possession when he purchased new ones. He was then questioned where they were, and he stated that they were in LE's possession. The cans were taken into custody on August 1st. So, he was questioned if he mowed his lawn between June 23rd to August 1st, to which he replied yes I'm sure I have.

When asked again how if he didn't use the gas cans once retrieving them from Casey, he responded evasively/argumentatively with a "You're not going to confuse me, you're not going to pull tricks on me..." comment. I don't have dates of when he purchased new cans because I don't believe he purchased new cans. I believe he used those cans, and wiped them down, but was trying to cover it up by saying he didn't use them anymore. I'm not sure what the importance of those gas cans are in relation to Caylee, maybe we'll find out one day. But, someone wiped them cans down.

My bolding

That is strictly your opinion that is was evasive and argumentative. Frankly, I thought he was quite restrained, knowing that his daughter's attorney was throwing him under the bus with unfounded and baseless accusations, and being accused of sexual molestation in front of millions of people.

 

[beccalecca1]

I disagree. We had days and days of evidence, that was the same evidence that was reported on. Facts actually. The time line, the lies, the made up people.. dates, partying etc. The reason that they had to reach so hard is that anyone who knew even a slight bit about the history knew there was not even a remote possibility that she didn't have anything to do with her daughters death. Despite any of the minor details that could be considered debatable, the blatant facts were there in black and white. The jury made it clear they were not interested.. no note takers, short deliberation, not asking any questions of the court or evidence to review. It's pretty clear it was a botched selection based on the fact they couldn't select anyone who cared about what is going on in our world today (ie intelligent, responsible people). JMO

I disagree that just because they didn't follow this case means they lack responsibility and intelligence. This case may not be the top priority in everyone's lives, believe it or not. And, because it wasn't their top priority during the investigation doesn't equate to anything. In fact, part of jury selection is finding people who do not know anything about the case prior to trial, and if they do know things they are able to forget what they know and listen to the trial only.

And, I didn't take any notes myself on this case and day by day I was waiting for something to show me that she could've murdered her child. I didn't see anything. When prosecution rested I was shocked that they didn't have anything IMO to point that way. Maybe the jury felt the same, so it wasn't necessary to note whatever happened in trial each day. The defense was pretty successful in disproving evidence the state thought was a slam-dunk. I don't believe I'm a unintelligent irresponsible person. If that's the conclusion I came up with, it's very plausible they could draw the same without them being unintelligent and irresponsible.

MOO.

 

[erinleigh]

i severely disagree with the verdict because at the very least agg child abuse should have been a conviction. i personally believe this was 1st degree murder. it amazes me how much information we have on the case, the Sunshine Laws have practically every document accessible but yet the jury heard 1/16th of all of this. (this is why i can understand them not going for 1st degree) i think thats where i get the most frustrated. i think the SA's did a great job but it seems the jury wanted the emotions. i wish they would have showed the anthony's for the liars they are and went out of their way to prove that CA was trying to take Caylee from Casey. What was the 911 call about not seeing Caylee since June 7th? there was a story there in the weeks leading up to Caylee's death and that i wish could have been examined. also where was jesse grund stating casey said he loved Caylee more than her..TL stating Caylee could not spend the night and he only wanted boy children..the puerto rico trip casey could not go on..the fights between CA and casey regarding control of Caylee. Kiomarie practically telling the world where to find the body and predicting the sticker. so much was left out. i dont know if it was chosen to be omitted of if a judges order prevented it.

still when all is said and done...to me the state proved....
casey searched once on how to make chloroform....Casey was there at TOD(confirmed by DT)... did not report the child hurt, missing or deceased(confirmed by DT)...had her body in the trunk...partied away for 31 days...told many lies regarding Caylee's whereabouts(confirmed by DT)....there were unusual levels of chloroform in the car..showed no remorse regarding the death of her daughter(confirmed by DT)...that Caylee was tossed in the wooded area....that Henkel duct tape was somehow tied to the remains..,
all this points to the fact that Casey was involved in the death and coverup. she should not be free to walk in society. i dont care if it was called manslaughter, 2nd degree, or 1st degree. casey was culpable in Caylee's death no matter who else the jury felt was involved....i feel the state tied her to to all of the above..and i think she should be behind bars.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

The great majority of your question are about how, when, and where, which according to jury instructions, do not need to be answered.

The prosecution case is not perfect granted. But not perfect does not mean IMO reasonable doubt.

I don't need to know the exact when, where, and how to know, IMO, beyond a reasonable doubt that a decomposing Caylee was in Casey's trunk and this is only consistent with either manslaughter or murder.

The chloroform evidence is a bit trickier and I would grant you reasonable doubt with respect to whether chloroform was used to murder Caylee.

The duct tape evidence is much stronger and IMO is what brings the charge from manslaughter to murder.

I realize that the majority of the questions I asked were where, when and how, and although I know the state does not, by law, have to provide the answers to these questions, if I am going to give somebody the DP, I need more than speculation from the prosecution.

The evidence provided for the trunk in the car: the alleged smell of death, the alleged shockingly high levels of chloroform, the hair with apparent decomp, the alleged fatty acids like adipocere, and the alleged stain, were all argued by the defense. The fact that the trunk liner did not smell in court, the white trash bag with maggots, no obvious signs of a stain, and the total lack of any substantial decomp fluids give me reasonable doubt as to whether Caylee was ever in the trunk. Now of course, this is my opinion, but I base it on what I heard and saw in court, and since I have reasonable doubt as to whether Caylee was ever in the trunk, this is neither consistant with manslaughter or murder.

The duct tape evidence, is all pure speculation. No proof the duct tape caused Caylee's death. The duct tape was attached to a hair matt, and was held there by debris and plant growth, not glue. The duct tape had no dna on it, which is inconsistant with the duct tape ever having been placed on Caylee. The photos of the duct tape that we saw are open for speculation. RK manipulated the skull. There is nothing but speculation and reasonable doubt surrounding the duct tape. In my opinion, the duct tape proves absolutely zero.

The state proved KC was a liar. They did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KC murdered Caylee. They speculated that Caylee was in the trunk for 3 days, but that evidence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They speculated that KC dumped Caylee in the swamp after triple bagging her, but there is no evidence of that. They HOPED that the chloroform was used before the duct tape so Caylee didn't suffer, but they were still speculating and offered no evidence that KC did anything with the duct tape or chloroform. The single search for how to make chloroform is easily explained by her boyfriends myspace page. The state did not provide any evidence that proved BARD that KC was guilty of any of the first three charges.

As always my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[sacrablue]

What I cannot understand is, ones who want to say that George or someone else was involved in what happened to Caylee, really need to stretch the imagination in finding scenarios that could include others, while at the same time dismissing what has been right in front of them, with all of Casey's actions, pointing to her guilt and only her guilt.

I also cannot understand accusing others of basing their opinions of casey's guilt on emotions when there isn't a real shred of real evidence pointing to anyone else's involvement, except perhaps a dislike of George as a person.

There isn't a scintilla of evidence that points to a drowning excpet for the DT opening statement. Same goes for george's involvement.

Why stop with George, why not accuse Lee and Cindy too, they all had access too, they all lied, Cindy lied more than george.

I realize we are all entitled to our opinions and nothing that any of us think will change what's happened but some things really seem to lack sense.

JMHO

The defense had to blame someone or something or both. So they make a list of all the possible suspects. Beside Casey's own family they ran out of people. Which person could Baez/Mason dig up the most dirt on? George , George and the little red gas can, George goes to work when the Pontiac smells. George plays with duct tape like its a pet dog, George yells at family, George walks around house with dead child yelling at people, George has romantic friend with a brain tumor....

Yea perfect, George will work fine and we will also blame the pool because swimming pools drown people everyday in Florida.

 

[Sustained]

According to his testimony (and his deposition), the gas cans were stolen on the 24th, he reported them on the 24th (because he was going to mow his lawn), he then met CA at the bank to deposit his tax return, and then received them back on the 24th from KC after returning home from the bank. He didn't proceed to mow his lawn that day because he had to work.

He was then questioned if he ever used the gas cans again, which he stated no. He was then questioned how he put gas in his lawnmower, and he stated he purchased new gas cans. When asked why he purchased new gas cans if he had his old ones in his possesion, he stated he didn't have them in possession when he purchased new ones. He was then questioned where they were, and he stated that they were in LE's possession. The cans were taken into custody on August 1st. So, he was questioned if he mowed his lawn between June 23rd to August 1st, to which he replied yes I'm sure I have.

When asked again how if he didn't use the gas cans once retrieving them from Casey, he responded evasively/argumentatively with a "You're not going to confuse me, you're not going to pull tricks on me..." comment.

I don't have dates of when he purchased new cans because I don't believe he purchased new cans. I believe he used those cans, and wiped them down, but was trying to cover it up by saying he didn't use them anymore. I'm not sure what the importance of those gas cans are in relation to Caylee, maybe we'll find out one day. But, someone wiped them cans down.

OK, I'm not sure how the gas cans are relevant either, but if GA mowed his lawn between 6/23 - 8/1, he must have used gas from the new cans and bought them prior to them being returned on 6/24. I have seen GA's lawn up close (I live in Orlando) and I can say for sure that he could mow his yard 4-5 times on one tank of gas. It is not a big yard. So it's no big deal that he didn't use the original cans between 6/24 - 8/1.

As far as being evasive on the stand, I would call his testimony careful about being truthful. There were numerous times when JB tried to trick him into saying things that were not true. For instance, after GA denied the affair with RC, JB asked him if he had told RC the "snowball" story while they were intimate. I don't remember the exact verbiage, but there is no doubt that JB was trying to put words in GA's mouth.

 

[kgeaux]

Thought I made it pretty clear. The restrictions on who they get to choose from left a sub par group of people. They were one step away from going to half way houses and homeless shelters.. if they had drivers licenses.

That statement was made in jest, and it is very disrespectful to the jurors. There were educated people on the jury, no one was one step away from a halfway house or a homeless shelter. The 12 jurors and the alternates were chosen from a normal jury pool.

doesn't it seem odd that you have a respected and experienced SA team trying a case that due to the circumstanial evidence, most people beliieve she is guilty and yet the jury decided to believe an inexperienced lawyer that most legal experts were saying wasn't doing a good job and his client who is an habitial and admitted liar, who not only lied but apparently lied about her lies about what happened to her daughter
Not only did they choose to believe the liar and her inept lawyer but to such a degree that they felt it didn't even warrant a real deliberation or any review of the evidence.
somethings not right
seriously it wouldn't have mattered if they had DNA or an eyewitness
The defense would say "The DNA is tainted" "the witness is a liar"
"believe us we should know because my client is the biggest and best liar around"
And the jury would go
"yup that sounds good, can we go home now"

The "legal experts" who were commenting on his inexperience were correct in the sense that he had never defended a death penalty case. However, their comments as to his effectiveness were obviously incorrect. Baez was VERY effective in this case. Talking heads on TV are often biased, and that bias was apparently pro-prosecution and anti-defense in this case.

homicide n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

I was pretty sure in this case we could rule out justifiable, excusable, self defense and suicide so with the exception of accidental homicide, which I am pretty sure doesn't exist how does your earlier statement relate to this case in particular? Unless, as I earlier asked do you believe that Dr. G's assessment of the manner of death was incorrect and should have been labeled 'accidental?'[/QUOTE]



The legal definition of homicide is not necessarily the same definition that pathologists use. Here is a quote from the 2005 book "Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice" that explains:


“When the designation ‘homicide’ is made, it does not necessarily mean that ‘murder’ has been committed or that somebody is to be held culpable for a person’s death,” the book says. “The medical examiner definition of homicide is simply that a person (or persons) killed another person. It is up to the court system to determine if murder has been committed.”

They did not have to "reach" at all, the jurors were all selected from the normal jury pool that had been called in the county. The JUDGE himself and several spokespeople stated that the comment about the homeless shelter was made in jest and never intended to be taken as fact. It was hyped by the talking heads and others as part of the sensationalism

Thank you! I thought I remembered that.

 

[WillChgo]

His argument also was that there was a garbage bag in the trunk, that GA did not call 911 immediately upon smelling the smell of death, and that LE did not secure the car for many hours. Why did the trunk liners not smell like death when they were shown as evidence? Does metal hold odor longer than carpet? If so, why didn't the prosecution prove metal holds odor longer than carpet?
Why did two experts while being tested make errors while looking at the banding? Why did the FBI expert say that the hair could come from a live human or from a decomposing human? I think the defense provided reasonable doubt here.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Can a garbage bag lead to a strong smell after two years?

As for GA I think he always suspected Casey and that is the reason he didn't call 911.

My recollection of the defense expert on banding is that he tried to simulate banding by other means and found hairs that looked similar to banding but were not quite the same.

I don't remember all the specifics of the banding testimony. But even if you are right and the scientific evidence on banding is not fully proven, the smell evidence remains- six witnesses and the trained dog.

Again here you have to looks at all the evidence and even if you disbelieve some of the evidence, significant evidence remains that there was a dead body in Casey's car and all the circumstantial evidence points to it being Caylee's.

I still don't understand how the dog and all the witnesses to the smell can be ignored.

 

[c@rol]

They did not have to "reach" at all, the jurors were all selected from the normal jury pool that had been called in the county. The JUDGE himself and several spokespeople stated that the comment about the homeless shelter was made in jest and never intended to be taken as fact. It was hyped by the talking heads and others as part of the sensationalism

Do you happen to have any links backing this?

Do a youtube search on it and watch it again.

 

[sacrablue]

OK, I'm not sure how the gas cans are relevant either, but if GA mowed his lawn between 6/23 - 8/1, he must have used gas from the new cans and bought them prior to them being returned on 6/24. I have seen GA's lawn up close (I live in Orlando) and I can say for sure that he could mow his yard 4-5 times on one tank of gas. It is not a big yard. So it's no big deal that he didn't use the original cans between 6/24 - 8/1.

As far as being evasive on the stand, I would call his testimony careful about being truthful. There were numerous times when JB tried to trick him into saying things that were not true. For instance, after GA denied the affair with RC, JB asked him if he had told RC the "snowball" story while they were intimate. I don't remember the exact verbiage, but there is no doubt that JB was trying to put words in GA's mouth.

I never understood why Baez was so taken up with the friggin red gas can. If I was on the stand and that sob plunked that can in front of me I woulda banged it off his square head.

 

[crucibelle]

None of GA's testimony was impeached. GA used up the duct tape b/c he was out putting up signs looking for his granddaughter. If LE wanted a piece of that duct tape, they could have gone to any of the Kids Finders command center and gotten it. And why would GA use the Henkel duct tape at a command center IF HE HAD TAPED Caylee's mouth with the same kind ? Not very smart, considering he was a homicide detective.

GA was not evasive during JB's examination - it was just that JB didn't/doesn't know how to ask a precise question about a particular gas can ON A PARTICULAR DATE ? I didn't think the work combative was synonomous with asking for clarification. In fact, a multitude of JB's questions were objected to as leading or already asked and answered.

So, he bought new gas cans in August to mow his lawn in August. And did you ever think he purchased new gas cans b/c FCA had stolen his out of the shed ? Do you have the exact date he purchased new gas cans ? Maybe it was after LE confiscated the ones he had as evidence ?

BBM. GA was NOT a homicide detective.

 

[sacrablue]

Can a garbage bag lead to a strong smell after two years?

As for GA I think he always suspected Casey and that is the reason he didn't call 911.

My recollection of the defense expert on banding is that he tried to simulate banding by other means and found hairs that looked similar to banding but were not quite the same.

I don't remember all the specifics of the banding testimony. But even if you are right and the scientific evidence on banding is not fully proven, the smell evidence remains- six witnesses and the trained dog.

Again here you have to looks at all the evidence and even if you disbelieve some of the evidence, significant evidence remains that there was a dead body in Casey's car and all the circumstantial evidence points to it being Caylee's.

I still don't understand how the dog and all the witnesses to the smell can be ignored.

I will never forgive Perry for not a;llowing those stink can to be opened. As soon as I heard not guilty, Ashton should have popped the cork on a can for the jury to remember.

 

[beccalecca1]

My bolding

That is strictly your opinion that is was evasive and argumentative. Frankly, I thought he was quite restrained, knowing that his daughter's attorney was throwing him under the bus with unfounded and baseless accusations, and being accused of sexual molestation in front of millions of people.

http://www.baynews9.com/uploadedfiles/Stories/Local/080509 George Anthony Depo Pgs 151 - 200.pdf

Pg. 164 line 10

GA being questioned by JA in regards to the gas can usage, and GA being evasive/argumentative (MOO) to JA (who didn't accuse GA of sexual molestation or things of the like).

IMO, this shows him hiding something.

 

[aeneas1]

haven't most of the post-trial threads been about whether or not wser's agree with the verdict, and why? just sayin'....

 

[Wendy101]

According to the testimony at trial. I don't remember CA whereabouts on the 16th being in question at all. So based on your statement, am I to assume that there are people who believe also that CA was involved in the death of Caylee?

I do. I think Caylees death happend on the night of the 15th -- IMO KC and CIndy were physically fighting and Caylee got in the way..

GA is covering for his daughter and his wife.

 

[MissJames]

Like many, I was stunned at the NG verdict,but believed the jury would have a logical explanation. I have been stunned once again to hear some of the jurors giving explanations that are in violation of the jury instructions and of the law.
They used information they were told was not evidence.They considered the DP sentence,even though they were told not to.Juror #3 obviously didn't even understand what the charges were .
It terrifies me to think 12 people could make such an important decision without a single question,clarification or read back.

I suspect some coersion happened in that jury room on some level.I pray some of the jurors will join #2 and speak out.What happened to the 6 who believed she was guilty?
Why didn't they stand firm and at least have a hung jury? Why the irrevocable NG?
Who convinced you to use faulty instructions?

 

[Sustained]

BBM. GA was NOT a homicide detective.

Please provide evidence if you would. I have read on various sources that he was a homicide detective.

 

[beccalecca1]

The defense had to blame someone or something or both. So they make a list of all the possible suspects. Beside Casey's own family they ran out of people. Which person could Baez/Mason dig up the most dirt on? George , George and the little red gas can, George goes to work when the Pontiac smells. George plays with duct tape like its a pet dog, George yells at family, George walks around house with dead child yelling at people, George has romantic friend with a brain tumor....

Yea perfect, George will work fine and we will also blame the pool because swimming pools drown people everyday in Florida.

BBM

Actually, isn't it a fact that they (the DT) don't have to blame anyone? They don't have to present a case at all because they do not hold the burden of proof.

 

[JMCDAD]

What I cannot understand is, ones who want to say that George or someone else was involved in what happened to Caylee, really need to stretch the imagination in finding scenarios that could include others, while at the same time dismissing what has been right in front of them, with all of Casey's actions, pointing to her guilt and only her guilt.

I also cannot understand accusing others of basing their opinions of casey's guilt on emotions when there isn't a real shred of real evidence pointing to anyone else's involvement, except perhaps a dislike of George as a person.

There isn't a scintilla of evidence that points to a drowning excpet for the DT opening statement. Same goes for george's involvement.

Why stop with George, why not accuse Lee and Cindy too, they all had access too, they all lied, Cindy lied more than george.

I realize we are all entitled to our opinions and nothing that any of us think will change what's happened but some things really seem to lack sense.

JMHO

so true:innocent: