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

[JBean]

Let's continue discussion here. Please keep TOS in mind because this is clearly a passionate topic.

I think there are some that agree she was not guilty and think justice was served.

There are some that think she is guilty, but the not guilty verdict was the only one that could be rendered based on evidence.

There are also some that think the evidence should have rendered a guilty verdict but the prosecution did not paint the picture clearly enough for the jury to see it.

If you agree with the verdict for any reason, why do you feel that way? Let's hear from you even if you just respect the verdict and don't fall into any of those camps clearly.

From mrsu's original OP:

This question is for those that agree with the not guilty verdicts. Please help me understand.

In your opinion, how did the state not convince you? What other info would you need to convict? Do you believe the drowning theory? What do you think really happened? Do you believe Casey did it and just that the State did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? How to you explain away the 31 days? The lying? The partying? What was the reason for the duct tape?

I am just trying to understand. I hear the defense talking heads saying simply that the state did not prove their case, but they have no explained how or why or what they think really happened.

If you disagree with the verdict, please talk about it. Did the state prove the case and the jury just got it wrong?

Let's have this discussion without attacking each other personally.

 

[SilkySifaka]

I am in the "she is guilty" but the prosecution did not prove it BARD in court so the verdict was correct.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

10 hour deliberation with all that evidence? Appalling.

 

[beccalecca1]

There was a post from the previous thread (don't remember who posted... sorry) that stated that us "not guilty" believers should have looked at all of the evidence, not just what was presented in court. I wanted to address that.

If there was more evidence that led to her guilt, the prosecution should have introduced that. I'm unclear to why there would be more damning evidence, but the prosecution wouldn't introduce that into court.

IMO, the court is where the truth tends to come out. Witnesses are on the stand and take an oath to tell the truth. Granted, some do lie on the stand, but I'd like to think a majority of people do tell the truth as they know it. So all of the "outside talk" isn't the truth in my book, unless it's talked about in court.

I believe there is nothing wrong with people following the trial ONLY, and basing their decisions on that. That is what is expected of the jury. Why isn't that what is expected from the general public? If the case was solid, any member of the public should be able to draw a guilty conclusion from trial, not everything else that wasn't included in the case.

If there was solid evidence pointing to her guilt but it wasn't allowed into court, I'm sure there is a very good reason for that. I don't doubt that HHJP did the most fair job he could for BOTH sides. And, I don't feel there was more evidence that wasn't allowed into court that would've proved her guilt.

MOO

 

[GhostCrab]

I agreed with the verdict simply because I do not believe that the state proved their case BARD. But let me say this: I watched this trial with a presumption that she was innocent, one that I would maintain up and until the state proved otherwise and I do not believe that they ever did.

I never formed an opinion in this case in the three years leading to the trial. I think that makes a huge difference because in reading posts on this forum it seemed as if most, if not all, had concluded that she was guilty before the trial even started.

And I saw every piece of evidence and watched all of the testimony, so there is no point in accusing me of doing otherwise. And like the state said in their press conference following the verdict, they put ALL the evidence out there, so it is really unfair to claim that the jurors (and by virtue, me) did not see all the evidence against her.

 

[Sustained]

JBean, what happened to the thread "Did the jury get it wrong ..." ? There are many of us who believe the verdict was wrong as well and don't necessarily want to upset the apple cart in this thread.

 

[dunlurken]

I was one of those who followed the case from day 1. I still want to know what happened to Caylee. At this point..........I don't know. Prosecution failed. JMO.

 

[natsound]

What I'd like to know is, who thinks the person who did this to Caylee was not the person on trial?

I could go on and on about the overwhelming amount of evidence I see which leans toward guilty, and I understand that much of it suggests who the killer is, instead of proving who the killer is. At the end of the day, most trials offer much more evidence that isn't necessariliy proof. I'll stay away from another lengthy dissection of the evidence.

In a nutshell, I think the person who did this to Caylee was indeed the person on trial, and therefore the verdict was wrong.

 

[WillChgo]

I was one of those who followed the case from day 1. I still want to know what happened to Caylee. At this point..........I don't know. Prosecution failed. JMO.

The DT outsmarted the prosecution by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their defense, with or without evidence to support it, to create confusion. Many became "befuddled" as you stated in an earlier post.

The prosecution, convinced they were right, did not take Baez seriously, did not carefully rebut his alternative scenario of "an accident that snowballed out of control," nor explain to the jury how in a circumstantial evidence case they need to consider all the parts of puzzle.

There are many unanswered questions as to how, when, and where Caylee died. We will never know exactly what happened.

This does not mean that the circumstantial evidence, if analyzed as a whole, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was a murder, and that Casey was the perpetrator.

 

[JBean]

JBean, what happened to the thread "Did the jury get it wrong ..." ? There are many of us who believe the verdict was wrong as well and don't necessarily want to upset the apple cart in this thread.

good question, let me check into it.

ETAk Both sides can be discussed in this thread as is inevitable anyway LOL. I adjusted the title.

Just let's keep the convo civil and keep the debate constructive. The Caylee mods are working way too hard.

 

[GhostCrab]

The DT outsmarted the prosecution by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their defense, with or without evidence to support it, to create confusion. Many became "befuddled" as you stated in an earlier post.

The prosecution, convinced they were right, did not take Baez seriously, did not carefully rebut his alternative scenario of "an accident that snowballed out of control," nor explain to the jury how in a circumstantial evidence case they need to consider all the parts of puzzle.

There are many unanswered questions as to how, when, and where Caylee died. We will never know exactly what happened.

This does not mean that the circumstantial evidence, if analyzed as a whole, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was a murder, and that Casey was the perpetrator.

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.

 

[Sustained]

The DT outsmarted the prosecution by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their defense, with or without evidence to support it, to create confusion. Many became "befuddled" as you stated in an earlier post.

The prosecution, convinced they were right, did not take Baez seriously, did not carefully rebut his alternative scenario of "an accident that snowballed out of control," nor explain to the jury how in a circumstantial evidence case they need to consider all the parts of puzzle.

There are many unanswered questions as to how, when, and where Caylee died. We will never know exactly what happened.

This does not mean that the circumstantial evidence, if analyzed as a whole, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was a murder, and that Casey was the perpetrator.

The DT outsmarted the prosecution by throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their defense, with or without evidence to support it, to create confusion. Many became "befuddled" as you stated in an earlier post.

True, the jurors were "befuddled" about a lot of things.

The prosecution, convinced they were right, did not take Baez seriously, did not carefully rebut his alternative scenario of "an accident that snowballed out of control," nor explain to the jury how in a circumstantial evidence case they need to consider all the parts of puzzle

.

No need to rebut an accident scenario as anyone with common sense knows that 911 is called. It is also not the prosecution's job to instruct the jury about circumstantial evidence, although it appears that it might have helped in this case.

There are many unanswered questions as to how, when, and where Caylee died. We will never know exactly what happened.

True, but none of those questions are relevant to the verdict.

This does not mean that the circumstantial evidence, if analyzed as a whole, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was a murder, and that Casey was the perpetrator.

Bravo ! The jury should have put the puzzle together, as there was plenty of incriminating circumstantial evidence. See Scott Petersen ...

 

[PaulaF513]

To tell the truth, I am really flabberghasted by those who think the verdict was correct.

Testimony IS evidence...and GA stated that he saw KC leave the house with Caylee, who was never again seen alive. Now, had KC taken the stand and stated that GA was the last person seen with Caylee, there would be conflicting evidence. That did not happen. GA's testimony stands, unchallenged by other testimony or evidence.

Opening statements are NOT evidence. The defense put forth a scenerio that was based upon WHAT??? Who provided evidence to back any of their wild claims and theories? NO ONE, because the only other person who could have done so, exercised her 5th Amendment right.

To me, it's simple. KC was the last person to have physical custody of a living Caylee. KC disappeared for 31 days while telling various and sundry people, including her mother, that Caylee was either still in her custody or with her sitter.

KC tells lies to mislead her family, friends and police who are trying to locate Caylee. KC goes to JAIL because she refuses to tell the truth about Caylee.

Caylee is found dead 6 months after she was last seen with KC and no other person. No other person has ever come forward to claim that Caylee was seen with anyone other than KC.

And remember please...GA's testimony has never been impeached. So JB floated a fabrication that was never, ever verified by ANYONE...and the jury, oblivious to the judge's admonitions and cautions that opening statements are not evidence, fails to connect any dots whatsover in logically reasoning out WHO done it. HOW she done it is actually immaterial. No one makes an accident look like murder, people....all dysfunctions and compartmentalizations considered.

 

[ShouldBWorking]

I think they over charged her, I think she should have been held accountable for something. Who gets a pass for their child being gone for a month and not reporting it? Who gets a pass for "allowing" their dad to "dump" their child's body (I don't believe this happened BUT the defense told the jurors it happened)....we watched someone get away with murder.....I think the failure started with the jury selection.....

 

[pinkflamingo]

I disagree with the verdict.

There is NO doubt in my mind that it was foul play by Casey. Casey's actions do not indicate that she would sit in jail for GA if it were an accident. Casey is always me, me, me. There is no evidence that she would be protecting her father. She would have told Yuri or JB would have told them if it were an accident. They would have explained the duct tape on the mouth as trying to contain fluids if it were true. She did not want anyone to find the body because there was foul play!

I think JB and his media people created this story to get her off on manslaughter only. No one predicted she would walk from ALL charges.

My thought on what happened? Caylee was being rented out as a child prostitute. Remember that time that Ricardo said he woke up and Caylee was not there? Casey was getting weird calls in the middle of the night? I think something went wrong--- she suffocated, and Casey freaked. I do not think it was chloroform, although they may have knocked her out to perform the acts. I do not see any evidence that it was a pool drowning... GA would not have gone to work and they would have taken down the pool. This is 100% Casey's fault. She didn't want ANYONE to find Caylee's remains. She was going to wait it out and hope for the best. Just like everything else in her life... graduating from hs and not telling her mom until the day of graduation, not telling anyone about her pregnancy, but not getting an abortion, the Universal hallway, leaving town after Caylee's death to go to California, but staying in bed with Tony for the 31 days, stealing money from Amy.... she just procrastinates and hopes for the best. Tomorrow's another day.

 

[KenoshaKid]

She should have gotten a child neglect conviction. As retired cop hubby says, not reporting your kid missing for 31 days is the DEFINITION of child neglect.

 

[cityslick]

To tell the truth, I am really flabberghasted by those who think the verdict was correct.

Testimony IS evidence...and GA stated that he saw KC leave the house with Caylee, who was never again seen alive. Now, had KC taken the stand and stated that GA was the last person seen with Caylee, there would be conflicting evidence. That did not happen. GA's testimony stands, unchallenged by other testimony or evidence.

Opening statements are NOT evidence. The defense put forth a scenerio that was based upon WHAT??? Who provided evidence to back any of their wild claims and theories? NO ONE, because the only other person who could have done so, exercised her 5th Amendment right.

To me, it's simple. KC was the last person to have physical custody of a living Caylee. KC disappeared for 31 days while telling various and sundry people, including her mother, that Caylee was either still in her custody or with her sitter.

KC tells lies to mislead her family, friends and police who are trying to locate Caylee. KC goes to JAIL because she refuses to tell the truth about Caylee.

Caylee is found dead 6 months after she was last seen with KC and no other person. No other person has ever come forward to claim that Caylee was seen with anyone other than KC.

And remember please...GA's testimony has never been impeached. So JB floated a fabrication that was never, ever verified by ANYONE...and the jury, oblivious to the judge's admonitions and cautions that opening statements are not evidence, fails to connect any dots whatsover in logically reasoning out WHO done it. HOW she done it is actually immaterial. No one makes an accident look like murder, people....all dysfunctions and compartmentalizations considered.

Actually it is up to the jury to decide whether they find a witness credible or not. They have clearly said they did not find GA credible for a variety of reasons, thus calling his testimony into question (specifically when he last saw Caylee). Granted, this was the DT's gameplan the whole time and it seems to had worked. Once the key part of his testimony is thrown into question due to credibility issues, then as the jury, you really don't know who was with Caylee in those final hours.

Could GA done anything differently on the stand? Sure, even I thought at times he wavered in his responses when he should of testified with more conviction.

 

[raeann]

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"

 

[cityslick]

She should have gotten a child neglect conviction. As retired cop hubby says, not reporting your kid missing for 31 days is the DEFINITION of child neglect.

I won't disagree but others had mentioned that you need to answer what exactly did she do to cause child neglect. Obviously the law isn't clear that simply not reporting your child missing = child neglect (thus the petitions for Caylee's Law) so what did she do that caused child neglect then? They already found her not guilty of actually murdering her child.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

First thing: (IMO) I think the jury got it wrong, though I am not too surprised. With 6 weeks of testimony, I had a feeling that the jury could get lost in the data. That being said, I expected them to spend a little more time trying to put the pieces together before writing it off as reasonable doubt.

Last Monday Vinnie Politan had an excellent show analyzing "how did the jury come to conclude a NG verdict". I wish I could find the show online because he made a lot of good points. (He also believes NG verdict is wrong, I think, but was trying to figure out what happened in that jury room). I would love to see VP have the jurors on his show - he would probably ask those hard questions the other reporters seem to avoid. (as long as the jurors don't get paid, of course)

There is a blog article that discusses a lot of the same about the jury's verdict:http://caseyanthonyjurors.weebly.com/index.html. Don't know if it has been posted before, I often get lost in the plethora of posts. anic: