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

[MarthaM]

I have two questions that I am very curious to know from people who agree with the verdict.

1. Do you believe FCA was with Caylee at the time of her death? I don't know.

2. And if so, do you believe she was alone or with someone else? I don't know.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[Americka]

*respectfully snipped*

How would Dr G know of the accidents that aren't reported ? They aren't reported!

She had to of meant every death by accident she comes across was reported to 911. She can't state for a fact every death

Dr. G was referring to accidents that occurred in HER county. She was very clear about that.

 

[beccalecca1]

The legal definition of 'child neglect':

Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. The CAPTA definition of "child abuse and neglect," at a minimum, refers to:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"

Specific to Florida:

Neglect
Citation: Ann. Stat. § 39.01

Neglect occurs when a child is deprived of, or is allowed to be deprived of, necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment or a child is permitted to live in an environment when such deprivation or environment causes the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired or to be in danger of being significantly impaired.

So, based on these statutes, whether she killed Caylee or it was an accident, by not calling 911, Caylee was 'deprived of medical treatment' when she was wrapped in trash bags and tossed into a swamp, right?

And based on her allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of both GA and Lee (which I find difficult to believe), she was also neglectful by permitting Caylee to live in an environment which could cause the child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired or to be in danger of being significantly impaired.

I can't remember if the jury choices were 'neglect' or 'abuse', I'll go look now. If they didn't have the option of neglect, I'll look up what the state considers to be 'abuse' and post it.

BBM

The abuse and neglect charges deal with children who are alive. I know this is completely sad, but these charges do not apply to children who are dead. If the state proved murder, they could've proved aggravated child abuse caused the murder (hence the additional charge). But, since she was found not guilty on murder, and there was no other evidence of child abuse/neglect, she was found not guilty on aggravated child abuse.

These laws were not designed to deal with abuse against dead children (and there was no evidence that the jury saw that showed she dumped her child like trash). There are laws against dead bodies, but unfortunately this isn't one of them.

 

[GhostCrab]

From the opening post.

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

Thanks, but it was originally titled If You Agree With the Verdict Tell Us Why, but a mod changed it and I did not see the change before I posted.

 

[kelian36]

This may have been posted. If so my apologies.

If not here is a little comic relief
Perry's Law - Episode 3 - Eccentric Witness

‪Perry's Law - Episode 3 - Eccentric Witnesses‬‏ - YouTube

:floorlaugh:
And that ginger~snap, is why we luv ya.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Dr. G was referring to accidents that occurred in HER county. She was very clear about that.

Yes thank you for clearing that up.

I think many people misunderstood her testimony

 

[beccalecca1]

Dr. G was referring to accidents that occurred in HER county. She was very clear about that.

She also was referring to accidents that she was able to look up, meaning they were reported accidents.

 

[MarthaM]

How would Dr G know of the accidents that aren't reported ? They aren't reported!

Yes, if someone didn't report an accidental death, nobody would know about it.

I thought that was funny. It reminded me of those 'imponderable' questions.

 

[Leah0107]

I do believe that Caylee died while in the custody of Casey. But based on the state's case I do not believe BARD that it was murder. I don't know WHAT happened. Neither side convinced me of anything. Therefore the only verdict I could agree with is NG. But that DOES NOT mean that I believe her to be innocent. Just not guilty BARD.

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.

 

[pinkflamingo]

My point about the partying was KC's party habits did not change significantly before and after death. Neither did the stealing and thefts... she did not change her behavior at all... if that was ugly coping, what was March, April, May, etc?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I disagree with the verdict, to put it mildly. It feels like a Sliding Doors situation, and those of us who banked on, dreamed about, and wished for Casey to get LWOP (at least) are desperately trying to get to the other door.

I could/can understand somewhat that the jury did not feel enough was presented to find her Guilty of Count 1. I was hoping after the clerk read NG on count one, that we'd hear Guilty on Count 2. But, NG on Count 3? That blew me away. I thought a 2 year old is dead, her mother is admittedly present, she did not call 911, behaved in an outrageous, unconscionable way for 31 days, (and would have done so for longer), and talked to the 911 operator, her family and Kristina Chester like it was all so much misunderstanding. I really thought those tapes would show the jury that this was a woman with something horribly criminal to hide. I don't agree that they had to know all the details of where Caylee died, when Casey put her in the trunk, etc, etc. She was there, she did not do what a parent should do when a "drowning" occurs. How is that NG of at least the Aggravated Manslaughter or child abuse? I don't get this jury's decision and I never will.

 

[WillChgo]

I have a few questions for those who think the verdict was wrong.

We all know that OS is NOT evidence. So, if you don't believe Caylee died of a drowning, on the morning of the 16th, then when and where did KC murder Caylee, when did she whip up the chloroform, where did she buy the materials needed for making chloroform, when did she use the chloroform, when did she triple bag her, when did she put her in the trunk, how long did she drive around with her in the trunk, when did she place the duct tape on her mouth and place the heart shaped sticker, at what time and date did she throw her away like trash, when did she lay Caylee's decomposing body in the backyard where the cadaver dogs alerted, how long did the body sit out in the open where the dogs alerted, why did the odor intensify in the trunk after the removal of the source of the odor, how did a dissipating substance like chloroform exist in a trunk that had been opened numerous times, how did the one single solitary strand of hair with apparent decomp end up being in the trunk, why were all the maggots in the white trash bag if there was no food in the bag, why did the state not do further testing on the adipocere like substance to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that it was indeed adipocere since such tests do exist, when was Caylee placed less than 20 feet from the road, why would KC place Caylee less than 20 feet from the road a quarter mile from her home if she was trying to cover up a murder, why were shorts belonging to Caylee that were way too small for her found in area A, how did KC manage to not leave one single solitary shred of evidence in area A that would tie her to the scene, how did a number of searchers from July 18th through late August when tropical storm Faye hit fail to locate Caylee when she was less than 20 feet from the road and less than 10 feet into the wooded area, and finally if the above questions were not answered and proven in court (which they were not) then how can you NOT have reasonable doubt? I do agree with the verdict because in my opinion there were way too many questions unanswered by the prosecution.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

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.

 

[GhostCrab]

I have a few questions for those who think the verdict was wrong.

We all know that OS is NOT evidence. So, if you don't believe Caylee died of a drowning, on the morning of the 16th, then when and where did KC murder Caylee, when did she whip up the chloroform, where did she buy the materials needed for making chloroform, when did she use the chloroform, when did she triple bag her, when did she put her in the trunk, how long did she drive around with her in the trunk, when did she place the duct tape on her mouth and place the heart shaped sticker, at what time and date did she throw her away like trash, when did she lay Caylee's decomposing body in the backyard where the cadaver dogs alerted, how long did the body sit out in the open where the dogs alerted, why did the odor intensify in the trunk after the removal of the source of the odor, how did a dissipating substance like chloroform exist in a trunk that had been opened numerous times, how did the one single solitary strand of hair with apparent decomp end up being in the trunk, why were all the maggots in the white trash bag if there was no food in the bag, why did the state not do further testing on the adipocere like substance to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that it was indeed adipocere since such tests do exist, when was Caylee placed less than 20 feet from the road, why would KC place Caylee less than 20 feet from the road a quarter mile from her home if she was trying to cover up a murder, why were shorts belonging to Caylee that were way too small for her found in area A, how did KC manage to not leave one single solitary shred of evidence in area A that would tie her to the scene, how did a number of searchers from July 18th through late August when tropical storm Faye hit fail to locate Caylee when she was less than 20 feet from the road and less than 10 feet into the wooded area, and finally if the above questions were not answered and proven in court (which they were not) then how can you NOT have reasonable doubt? I do agree with the verdict because in my opinion there were way too many questions unanswered by the prosecution.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

:rocker:

 

[cityslick]

BBM

The abuse and neglect charges deal with children who are alive. I know this is completely sad, but these charges do not apply to children who are dead. If the state proved murder, they could've proved aggravated child abuse caused the murder (hence the additional charge). But, since she was found not guilty on murder, and there was no other evidence of child abuse/neglect, she was found not guilty on aggravated child abuse.

These laws were not designed to deal with abuse against dead children (and there was no evidence that the jury saw that showed she dumped her child like trash). There are laws against dead bodies, but unfortunately this isn't one of them.

Both your and imagirl's posts are great, thank you for that. I agree, that law doesn't take into account if the child is dead and by finding her NG of the murder charge, they are essentially saying (legally) that she had nothing to do with the child dying, thus no neglect.

I think the actual charge the jury considered was aggravated child abuse, which may have a different definition.

 

[kgeaux]

I disagree, I do not think that the circumstantial evidence taken together painted a picture that Casey murdered Caylee. In fact I would feel the same way had the defense not put on a case at all.

I can't go that far. I think the defense did a great job of pointing out the points of reasonable doubt about much of the evidence.

This article sums up well what I would say in terms of agreeing with the verdict.

It was written by a highly respected attorney with decades of criminal trial experience.

Here a few snips, much more in article.....

"Simply put, the evidence failed to show that Caylee was murdered (dead is not the same thing as murdered), how Caylee came to be dead (natural or unnatural cause), what Casey did to cause Caylee to be dead (Casey, not just someone), or that Caylee's death was caused by a deliberate act of Casey that was premeditated.

The jury heard the evidence and considered the law as given by the trial judge. The verdict was not that Casey was innocent of anything. The verdict was "not guilty" — which translates to "the government failed to prove her guilty under the law and the evidence presented.

I don't know about the rest of the American people, but I want to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and not have to worry about the opinion of the uninformed.

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/07/14/1932818/casey-anthony-verdict-affirmed.html#ixzz1SeubGHsH"

That article is an excellent synopsis of why I believe NG was the correct verdict. Thank you for posting it!

I think she was guilty - for pete's sakes - how did all that decomp fluid get in her car? I mean I have to routinely clean that out of mine -- NOT. I don't think GA and CA helped any though--- they should have called police at the first smell of the car. I don't understand how the jury didn't request anything - no read backs, not to look anything, not a freaking thing. Are they that brilliant?? NOPE. They failed. The jury failed to do their job. And a murderer is walking around free. Thanks Pinellas County 12. You rock the hut.

There are statements in the document dumps which deal precisely with the "decomp fluid" that was found in the trunk. The FBI report states that the presence of what they found does NOT mean a "human body" was ever in the trunk.

Some chemicals that were found would also be found in any decomp fluid----human or animal. Some chemicals which were NOT found should always be present in human decomp.

IMO, there is reasonable doubt and that was even pointed out in the FBI report!

For me, all the evidence found in area A, all the evidence found in the trunk, and the computer forensics was a battle of the forensic experts. I feel both sides performed equally well, or close enough to equally, that reasonable doubt had to be applied.

Like most people, the 31 days of unacceptable behavior looks to be very, very, very bad for KC. If I had not witnessed first hand, bizarre bahavior from several of my relatives following untimely, and very sad deaths in our family, I would have had a very difficult time considering KC's behavior for 31 days could be explained by grief. The grief expert, although having a rather unique way of presenting testimony, made enough valid points that one could come around to believing it is possible that KC's behavior may have been caused by grief. Again for me, this possible explanation added to the equally possible explanations for the forensics by the defense experts, leaves me with reasonable doubt.
So I have to agree with the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Totally agree!

Aired out samples of a cleaned car and one search for chloroform in March is not enough to kill someone and prove murder. Not when a tried and true FBI guy is saying the levels were normal in a trunk consistent with cleaning products. There was not 31 days of partying shown, just one night, and thats not strong enough to use as motive.

Agreed. IMO, the moment it was pointed out to the jury that the search for chloroform happened ONCE, not 84 times, it took most of the wind out of the prosecutor's sails. They built much of their case on the theory that chloroform was used, and yet there was only one search, months prior to Caylee's disappearance. (While many believe that Cindy's testimony was pure lies, Dr Drew pointed out that he himself had done a computer search for chlorophyll and the search engine redirected him to chloroform.....so maybe there was a little nugget of truth in her testimony.) The prosecution offered no proof, not one shred of evidence that any of the supplies needed to make chloroform were ever purchased, and purchased by Casey, nor did they present any evidence that chloroform was ever made by Casey.

I will once again offer people who struggle with how others grieve to google Dr. Bonono (I think that is how his name is spelled) and his research findings about grief......it is quite eyeopening. He is a pioneer in researching how people grieve.

Well I thought she was guilty 3 years ago so I believe the jury got it wrong. I just think some people are just looking too deep into what's pretty simple in my opinion. Her defense team admitted she was there when Caylee died in their opening statement but they never proved that George was there too. I think that speaks volumes. Then you add to that the 31 days, lies, videos,smell,duct tape,blanket,chloroform,motive,etc. and doesn't take an Einstein to figure out who did it. As the Prosecution stated who had more to gain?

Three years ago, most people probably thought she was guilty. No defense had been presented.

It may be remarkable, but I really do believe the defense did a great job of refuting the evidence presented by prosecution.

You realize, I hope, that the defense can ALWAYS find some paid "expert" to refute the prosecution's? This doesn't men that the two sides should cancel each other out on the forensics.

A "grief expert"?! This is where common sense must come into play. Do you know of anyone, or have you ever heard of anyone, who parties, carries on, shops, etc. after their child dies - even if that were in an accident? 100% of mothers don't act that way....unless of course they're happy that their child is gone.

Please read Dr. Bonono's research! It is eye-opening!! There really are people who are grief experts, and the findings do much to refute the old stereotypes that there are set patterns to grief.....or that everyone grieves in the same way.


http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/coping/why-some-people-dont-grieve.htm Just a quick link......and his name is properly spelled Bonanno!

 

[Peachy Keen]

As for the grief, and the loss of a child, my cousin lost her 6 year old daughter to a brain tumor, and could not deal with it. My cousin felt it was all her fault her daughter died. She drank to forget, partied to forget, and then turned to drugs to forget. After nearly two years of this behavior she ended up in jail for a DUI. In jail, she dried out, and sought counseling, and after getting the help she needed now leads a normal productive life. During those two years however, she was not ready to get help, didn't want it, wouldn't accept it, and didn't feel she needed it.

respectfully snipped

First, I am sorry about your cousin's loss. It is heartbreaking.

But did she not report her child's death? Did she blame the death on a fake nanny? Did she lie to everyone about the location of her child? Was her child put in two garbage bags, a laundry bag, duct taped and thrown in a swamp to rot? Was she nonchalant about her child being gone and was she only interested in her husband/boyfriend? Did she accuse others of being responsible for the death?

I think we are talking apples and oranges here. Reacting the way your cousin did is tragic, yet understandable. Acting the way FCA did is unconscionable.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

With all due respect, if you can't even truly answer one of the questions, I would have to think it's a not guilty verdict by law. I understand that they don't have to have all the questions answered for them, but if you can't answer a single one of them... what are you suppose to do?

 

[kathyn2]

I totally disagree with the verdict. I could have voted 1st degree in an instant. The excuses the jury used to vote NG were totally bogus and against the rules. I think its a crying shame that a jury is allowed to deliberate and come to a conclusion built on faulty reasoning. There should be a rule that the judge talks to the jury before they come to a conclusion to find out what they have to say and send them back to deliberate if they are doing it wrong. This jury did not go over any evidence at all. They decided erroneously that Baez's opening statement was evidence and went with it all the way to the end without giving a thought to the evidence. They discounted all of it looking for some smoking gun that doesn't exist. No one explained anything to them apparently or they were too dumb to understand how to deliberate and use their common sense.

 

[onewick]

I believe between the cross examinations by the defense, and the defense witnesses testimony, that they were successful in raising reasonable doubt to most if not all forensic evidence.

As for the grief, and the loss of a child, my cousin lost her 6 year old daughter to a brain tumor, and could not deal with it. My cousin felt it was all her fault her daughter died. She drank to forget, partied to forget, and then turned to drugs to forget. After nearly two years of this behavior she ended up in jail for a DUI. In jail, she dried out, and sought counseling, and after getting the help she needed now leads a normal productive life. During those two years however, she was not ready to get help, didn't want it, wouldn't accept it, and didn't feel she needed it. This tragedy in our family occurred many years ago, but it shows me that grief can make some of us act in abnormal ways.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

That is a very normal reaction after the fact, what is not normal is saying your daughter was kidnapped 31 days after the fact and you were looking for her in the bars around town and then 2 1/2 years after that, state she drowned.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

What I don't understand is the evidence found in the trunk. If six people and a trained dog smell a decomposing body how can this be ignored?

I know Baez' argument here: well six people didn't smell it- so they cancel each other out.

That is flawed logic. Just because someone doesn't smell something does not mean that it did not smell. Those that had the opportunity to open the trunk and smell it did so. So also did the defense witness who witnessed the smell two years after the liners had been removed from the trunk.

Not only was there a dead body in the trunk, but the hair with banding had to be from Caylee's decomposing body. There is no scientific evidence that banding can occur absent decomposition. The defense witness tried to find other causes for banding and failed to do so. This is not about two sides performing reasonably equally on the hair banding issue. IMO this is clear win for the prosecution.

How can there be reasonable doubt that Caylee's dead body was in Casey's trunk?

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.