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

[Sustained]

By DT's admission, GA and Casey were the last to be with Caylee alive.

If that theory was how the law was intended, if I was out partying with a friend and they disappeared after we said our goodbye's, then later were found murdered... wouldn't that mean I was guilty?

Of course not, but when you went out partying, you were not a 2-year-old child supposedly in the care of her mother.

 

[Sustained]

So, it's ok to speculate that the defense isn't telling the truth, but if we are to question the prosecution we better have facts to back it up? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, because as you said yourself, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

 

[beccalecca1]

Please read this link:

http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessle...Anthony-GretaVanSusteren/2011/07/13/id/403503

Comments after the verdict by jurors and an alternate juror suggest they had no idea what their job was. They said the prosecution had not shown exactly how Caylee Anthony died, where she died, or when she died. That was not their obligation. Their obligation was to determine if Casey Anthony had killed her daughter.

quoted from the link

I believe that this comment was based upon interpretation of what the jurors were stating. IMO, when they didn't know "exactly how" Caylee died, they are referencing to who killed her, if anyone, etc.

So, I disagree with this article (which I'm sure you knew I would )

 

[beccalecca1]

Well, JP obviously did which is the reason the DT couldn't refer to any of their own theories (or speculation) in their closing.

Actually, JP allowed them to discuss their theory of a drowning accident.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Don't you think if the state had proven its case that all the jurors would have voted "guilty"?

No, because they broke the rules as well as ignored evidence. Have you listened to the interviews with Jennifer Ford and the Foreman?

 

[beccalecca1]

Sorry, there have been many convictions w/o knowing the when, where, or how ... I like to use Scott Petersen, but look up the case of missing girl Carrie Culberson and the convicted murderer Vincent Doan.

I stated that if you don't have the WHO, WHAT, when, where, or how... you don't have a case. In the cases you referred to, there clearly was at least one of the above. Not in this case, IMO.

 

[Littleone48]

I respect your opinion. For me, the only way to believe NG BARD, I would have to believe that she accidentally drowned in the pool and then put duct tape on her mouth to make it look like a kidnap/murder. And I just absolutely don't buy this theory at all, nor believe that there was any evidence to support it.

I do not believe that there was evidence to support the duct tape on her mouth IMO

 

[RR0004]

By DT's admission, GA and Casey were the last to be with Caylee alive.

If that theory was how the law was intended, if I was out partying with a friend and they disappeared after we said our goodbye's, then later were found murdered... wouldn't that mean I was guilty?

If there was evidence of their decomposing body in YOUR car...I would think so. If you lied about having spoken to your friend when she was missing/dead, I would think that would bump you up on LE's list of suspects...lol. Add to that that you lied to the relatives of your friend and told them that you knew exactly where your friend was...yup...in my book that would make you guilty as heck. But, that's just me.

 

[beccalecca1]

Of course not, but when you went out partying, you were not a 2-year-old child supposedly in the care of her mother.

I don't understand your point with the bolded part.

If I was out partying, I wouldn't be suspected to be a 2 year old.:waitasec:

I think I misunderstood what you were saying completely.

 

[cuppy199]

So, it's ok to speculate that the defense isn't telling the truth, but if we are to question the prosecution we better have facts to back it up? Am I understanding that correctly?

Please dont put word in my mouth where did I say anyone that question the prosecution to back it up. No where did I even mention the prosection.My point was that the DT can speculate because they dont have to prove it.

 

[RR0004]

Actually, JP allowed them to discuss their theory of a drowning accident.

But then the jury shouldn't have considered any of GA's statements in their deliberations and they should have made their decision on the "proof" of the drowning...which I don't think they admitted to doing...especially as there wasn't any.

 

[beccalecca1]

Yes, because as you said yourself, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

Yes, but I don't know if the prosecution has to prove their own motive in presenting their case... this post was in reference to the motive behind the defense's case.

 

[beccalecca1]

If there was evidence of their decomposing body in YOUR car...I would think so. If you lied about having spoken to your friend when she was missing/dead, I would think that would bump you up on LE's list of suspects...lol. Add to that that you lied to the relatives of your friend and told them that you knew exactly where your friend was...yup...in my book that would make you guilty as heck. But, that's just me.

But, IMO, there wasn't evidence of a decomposing body in the car. And, maybe losing my friend to a murderer would put me in some sort of shock and I believed I spoke to my friend (many people speak about seeing/hearing dead loved ones once they're gone).

I'm not suggesting that is what Casey was doing. I am suggesting that just because of those things happened doesn't mean she's a murderer in my book.

 

[mobeydick]

Not Guilty, Reason, Lack of Evidence.
I think she is guilty of at least Negligence though!

 

[kelian36]

:maddening::furious: :sick: :steamed: NOT GUILTY VERDICT - DISAGREE :steamed: :sick: :furious: :maddening:


The Pineallas 12 ...

:loser::loser::butthead::loser::loser::loser:
:loser::loser::loser::loser::butthead::loser:

MOO MOO MOO ...

In just saw the butt in the middle. bwwwaaaaa

 

[annalia]

I stated that if you don't have the WHO, WHAT, when, where, or how... you don't have a case. In the cases you referred to, there clearly was at least one of the above. Not in this case, IMO.

iirc, They were never able to determine a cause of death for Laci because her body was too badly decomposed. So then, how do we know for sure that Laci didn't die accidently or murdered by a satanic cult like Geragos claimed??

 

[beccalecca1]

But then the jury shouldn't have considered any of GA's statements in their deliberations and they should have made their decision on the "proof" of the drowning...which I don't think they admitted to doing...especially as there wasn't any.

BBM

I'm confused on the bolded statement. Since the judge allowed the drowning theory in court, the jury wasn't allowed to hear GA's testimony? And, why does the defense have the burden of proof in the drowning? I understood that the defense never has the burden of proof.

 

[kelian36]

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"

In my heart that's exactly what I think happened. To quote you, I definitely believe they said,
"yup that sounds good, can we go home now."
THAT is a shame and a disgrace to the justice system............and to Caylee.

 

[beccalecca1]

iirc, They were never able to determine a cause of death for Laci because her body was too badly decomposed. So then, how do we know for sure that Laci didn't die accidently or murdered by a satanic cult like Geragos claimed??

I can't really answer that because I wasn't on the jury.

 

[mobeydick]

The public is responsible for the verdict though, they wanted this “woman’s” head on a stick and the state was forced to go to trial with no evidence. In most cases like this the DA would have set her free until she ran her mouth. That wasn’t allowed to happen. You can pin this one on the public at large!