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

[Sustained]

If I were sitting on that jury, throughout the whole trial, I wouldn't need any evidence to look at. I would've voted NG for murder 1, I would've had to look at the law for Manslaughter and Aggravated Child Abuse, then after reviewing the law would've voted NG for those also. Just my :twocents:.

I would have convicted her on felony murder due to aggravated child abuse.

“In Florida, felony murder with added circumstance of aggravated child abuse equals first degree murder. You kill a child not meaning to while in the act of doing something to that child that is known to potentially cause death, that is felony murder. Aggravated child abuse can result from a variety of abusive acts upon a child. There does not have to be a habitual pattern to the abuse, it can happen in one instance, and it can and does often occur at the hands of someone who loved the child.”

 

[Italy]

If you're insinuating perhaps I'm the foreman, I can clear that up right now, I'm in no way related to this case.

I started off in the beginning believing she was guilty. I lost track of the case after they arrested her from the Universal lies, and remember hearing about them finding the body, but didn't pay too much attention to it over the years after that.

I started paying attention to it again when I heard on NG that they're starting the trial soon (I honestly thought she was already tried and convicted). I started looking up info on this case, I found a lot on this board. I thought this would be an interesting trial to watch (I've never before watched every second of a trial, I'm 29 and thought there were more important things to be doing with my life during most of the big cases). After opening statements, I thought... really??? After all this time this is your answer to the questions?? I didn't buy JB in the beginning. But, I continued to watch to see what the state had to offer. While watching the trial I continued to research documents, etc. When the state rested I couldn't believe it. Nothing was tied to Casey IMO. Nothing. By the end of trial there wasn't a doubt in my mind she wasn't going to get anything but the 4 counts of lying.

I did a lot of arguing on a fellow WSer's Youtube channel, and if she was around here (perhaps?) she could attest to that. I took a lot of beatings, but I held my ground. I didn't post much here, I don't think I posted anything at all, because all the threads I saw were geared towards the state's case.

I absolutely do not think you are the foreman.

 

[Italy]

It is a moot point, but I wish that Jennifer Ford had been the foreman.

 

[beccalecca1]

Not necessarily. "Some psychopaths can even be very fond of animals (contrary to the common viewpoint), but still view them as objects in relation to themselves."

Regardless of what you think of Casey Anthony, the characteristics of psychopathy are far more insidious. I recommend you read the following:

http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath_2.htm (I hope I'm allowed to post the link)

It is the first site that popped up when I typed: "Why psychopaths are dangerous". The site is called What is a Psychopath?

Many, many people are fooled by psychopaths -- including the most accomplished psychologists/psychiatrists. I certainly do not presume that I know all of the traits of a psychopath - my understanding is that they are chameleons. Anyway, read the article, I think you will find it interesting and informative.

Interesting... not necessarily informative though.

The only type of psychopath I could see as similar to Casey is...

CHARISMATIC PSYCHOPATHS are charming, attractive liars. They are usually gifted at some talent or another, and they use it to their advantage in manipulating others. They are usually fast-talkers, and possess an almost demonic ability to persuade others out of everything they own, even their lives. Leaders of religious sects or cults, for example, might be psychopaths if they lead their followers to their deaths. This subtype often comes to believe in their own fictions. They are irresistible.

I don't see her starting a cult anytime soon though.

If you scroll to the bottom of this page, you will find this in small print...

The owners and publishers of these pages wish to state that the material presented here is the product of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication. We invite the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism" nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth. The one thing we can tell the reader is this: we work very hard, many hours a day, and have done so for many years, to discover the "bottom line" of our existence on Earth. It is our vocation, our quest, our job. We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.

This means to me that it isn't a credible source to look for answers. I suggest finding a site with .edu, .gov, etc. Usually .com's can be created by anyone.

 

[askfornina]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article1181900.ece


Russ Huekler - alternate juror:

"It wasn't that we believed Casey was innocent," he said. "But we knew it wasn't enough to think she was probably guilty based on her lies. To follow what the law required, we needed to be definite."

:waitasec:

i don't think this necessarily proves anything. weren't he and the other alternates still sequestered during deliberations? maybe he is talking about what he and the other alternates talked about or thought. his use of we does not necessarily refer to all of the other jurors. that is also a logical possibility. imo

 

[Italy]

Interesting... not necessarily informative though.

The only type of psychopath I could see as similar to Casey is...


I don't see her starting a cult anytime soon though.

If you scroll to the bottom of this page, you will find this in small print...


This means to me that it isn't a credible source to look for answers. I suggest finding a site with .edu, .gov, etc. Usually .com's can be created by anyone.

You can read quite a number of parallel profiles on Psychology Today also -- but it appears that you have all the information you need already, so really, why bother. I think I'll go by what the experts say and recognize that I am easily fooled by psychopaths (much like the professionals).

 

[Sustained]

It is a moot point, but I wish that Jennifer Ford had been the foreman.

I wish I had been the foreman ...

 

[beccalecca1]

You can read quite a number of parallel profiles on Psychology Today also -- but it appears that you have all the information you need already, so really, why bother. I think I'll go by what the experts say and recognize that I am easily fooled by psychopaths (much like the professionals).

Lol... I'll stick with my mental health text books

 

[eleni777]

http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days.htm

George called Casey:
From 407-403-3564 cell
06/16 03:03pm

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE...
:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
According to George June 16th is the last day he saw Caylee alive.
George said Casey and Caylee left around 1pm.
George describes in DETAIL what both of them are wearing.
George leaves for work around 2-2:30.
Casey didn't call George before this call.
Why did George call her after he got to work?
Was this ever brought up in questioning?

 

[Italy]

I'll stick with my mental health text books

In all sincerity, I hope that your studies lead you to a greater understanding of this most dangerous condition. I hope you will not rely solely on text books in your learning.

 

[askfornina]

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE...
:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
According to George June 16th is the last day he saw Caylee alive.
George said Casey and Caylee left around 1pm.
George describes in DETAIL what both of them are wearing.
George leaves for work around 2-2:30.
Casey didn't call George before this call.
Why did George call her after he got to work?
Was this ever brought up in questioning?

i can't check the link to verify because i am on my phone, but i have heard that george called the house phone right before he made this call to caseys cell.

edit: i checked the link and don't see it there. i wish i could remember where i read this!

 

[suzihawk]

This article was written today. I'm not sure when the interview was done, but I'm sure it wasn't that long ago. Is it possible since the verdict Huekler has been in contact with the other juror members? Absolutely. He did not state in the article that he knew how the deliberations went. What he states is in present tense.

Actually, it was written yesterday but I won't dicker with you over that.

He's just reitereating the same "we" statements he's said from the first time he spoke out. Which was either the same day of the jury's verdict or the day after. It's doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever that this wasn't discussed amongst themselves before deliberations.

And just to show you what kind of things they placed importance on:

"And, to add further insult, he and the jury foreman were forced to change dinner plans they'd made during the trial to meet at a restaurant they both liked, Skyline Chili in Clearwater, after the trial."

Ain't that a shame?! A child thrown in the swamp to rot and their dinner plans were ruined.

MOO

 

[beccalecca1]

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE...
:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
According to George June 16th is the last day he saw Caylee alive.
George said Casey and Caylee left around 1pm.
George describes in DETAIL what both of them are wearing.
George leaves for work around 2-2:30.
Casey didn't call George before this call.
Why did George call her after he got to work?
Was this ever brought up in questioning?

Woah... I didn't even catch that. Thanks for pointing it out!!hwow:

I don't believe this was ever questioned. I do know though, before all of this happened, GA and Casey rarely spoke to each other on the phone.

 

[Sustained]

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! WAIT A MINUTE...
:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:
According to George June 16th is the last day he saw Caylee alive.
George said Casey and Caylee left around 1pm.
George describes in DETAIL what both of them are wearing.
George leaves for work around 2-2:30.
Casey didn't call George before this call.
Why did George call her after he got to work?
Was this ever brought up in questioning?

Easy now ... maybe GA called FCA just to ask her a simple question, i.e. will you and Caylee be home tomorrow ? I'd like to take Caylee to the park ... or maybe he called to tell her to take it easy on CA after the supposed fight the night before ...

I believe FCA called him back twice around 4:10 PM the same day ...

 

[Italy]

i can't check the link to verify because i am on my phone, but i have heard that george called the house phone right before he made this call to caseys cell.

edit: i checked the link and don't see it there. i wish i could remember where i read this!

He probably tried to call her back. Phone records (6/16) indicate that Casey tried to call her parents 6 times within one hour - first at 3:03. She also tried calling Jesse Grund.

The next day (6/17)she borrowed the shovel from neighbor.

 

[beccalecca1]

Actually, it was written yesterday but I won't dicker with you over that.

He's just reitereating the same "we" statements he's said from the first time he spoke out. Which was either the same day of the jury's verdict or the day after. It's doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever that this wasn't discussed amongst themselves before deliberations.

And just to show you what kind of things they placed importance on:

"And, to add further insult, he and the jury foreman were forced to change dinner plans they'd made during the trial to meet at a restaurant they both liked, Skyline Chili in Clearwater, after the trial."

Ain't that a shame?! A child thrown in the swamp to rot and their dinner plans were ruined.

MOO

This article is written to inform us of the backlash they have received, in totality. Death threats, insults, floods of emails, phone calls, etc etc. One juror had to move out of town out of fear for her safety.

I do believe that's a shame. These people didn't beg to get on the jury. They were summoned and chosen, not by any of their control. I don't believe they deserve any of what they're getting.

 

[Italy]

These phone records are well documented and were known by law enforcement from the beginning of the investigation. Why are they significant now?

 

[askfornina]

Easy now ... maybe GA called FCA just to ask her a simple question, i.e. will you and Caylee be home tomorrow ? I'd like to take Caylee to the park ... or maybe he called to tell her to take it easy on CA after the supposed fight the night before ...

I believe FCA called him back twice around 4:10 PM the same day ...

right, i agree. the fact that he called casey on her cell really means nothing to me. but i could have sworn i saw a call from george to the house phone on the sixteen right before that call SOMEWHERE, i believe it was on acandyrose. maybe i was just extra tired that day or something. can anyone confirm or deny this with a link? i specifically remember this because i got in a fight with my friend about the relevence

 

[askfornina]

These phone records are well documented and were known by law enforcement from the beginning of the investigation. Why are they significant now?

right. im discussing this purely to get the facts straight in my mind

 

[logicalgirl]

Its a thread asking for peoples opinions..asking people if they agree or disagree..some people will agree, some people will disagree. Doesnt make one opinion "better " than the other, just different, as the question asked in the thread title.

I absolutely agree with your comment. What I have a problem with is folks making untrue comments about evidence, what evidence was presented, and the scientific qualifications of the evidence and the experts who submitted it. And the final testimony of those experts. What I accept is varying opinions of posters on the value of the evidence, but not whether or not the evidence actually existed.