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

[beccalecca1]

The items with the MURDERED child were found in her home. Her grandparents home. The grandparents who loved her, adored her. It is weak and ridiculous to even suggest the grandparents harmed Caylee.


Casey's mother used killing her child to get back at Cindy and to free herself for her bf.
FCA, a child killer, walked out of jail free.
The jurors were wrong.

I guess that's where the confusion lies, I'm not suggesting anyone harmed her. I am suggesting that the "evidence" to prove murder was not soley Casey's items, they're items that were in the house that all Anthony's had access to.

 

[beccalecca1]

The jury was rationally invested in Caylee, not emotional invested in her.

The State did not prove murder, thats really a fact now. jmo

BBM

Thank you for pointing that out!

 

[gxm]

The blanket= In the Anthony home meaning any of the Anthony's had access to it.

The hamper= In the Anthony home meaning any of the Anthony's had access to it, and stored in a specific spot in the Anthony garage (sounds more like a Cindy/George thing to me).

The bags= In the Anthony home meaning any of the Anthony's had access to it.

The duct tape= In the Anthony home/George's locked shed (don't know if it has been pointed out where exactly it was kept) meaning any of the Anthony's had access to it, or just specifically George. It should be noted that after Caylee's death, George has been the only one seen using the tape (I guess he just got lucky and happened to find this tape after Casey used it? Why wouldn't Casey just take the tape with her and dump it with the body?)

Why wouldn't Casey just take the tape with her and dump it with the body?)

BBM.

Because the tape wasn't used on the bags, it was used on the child. It wasn't an afterthought it was a forethought. The bags, the disposal, came later after the child was dead.

 

[Chablis]

:banghead::banghead: SHE DIDNT HAVE A JOB....she didnt go to work.

Yes, but she packed a bag and left like she did, is this in dispute? She came back home after George left.

 

[dvdman]

No it was the Jury that was emotionally invested in Casey and fell for her
fake emotions/lies. They in turn ignored the facts of the case <modsnip>.....31 days.

The jury was rationally invested in Caylee, not emotional invested in her.

The State did not prove murder, thats really a fact now. jmo

 

[annalia]

The jury was rationally invested in Caylee, not emotional invested in her.

The State did not prove murder, thats really a fact now. jmo

I disagree, the jury based everything on emotiions and feelings while dismissing all of the evidence, in particular their feelings about George with not one scintilla of evidence.

Their own words proved that. jmho

 

[gxm]

I guess that's where the confusion lies, I'm not suggesting anyone harmed her. I am suggesting that the "evidence" to prove murder was not soley Casey's items, they're items that were in the house that all Anthony's had access to.

But only one person was last seen with Caylee when Caylee was last seen alive. That's KC. And she never reported Caylee missing.

 

[Sustained]

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?

Ah, not true .... the most important question was answered - Who ? Who else had access to all of the evidence in the case ? Who DID NOT call 911 if it was an accident ? Who repeatedly lied to police ? Who dumped the Sunfire by the dumpster at the Amscot ? Who went partying for 31 days and didn't report her child missing ? Who tried to borrow a shovel from a neighbor ? Who claimed a nanny stole the child ? Who was NOT planning on telling her parents anything until CA tracked her down ? Who told her weekend friend in the car "I'm such a good liar" ? Who searched for "how to make chloroform" on the Interent ?

The State did not have to prove WHY,HOW,WHEN,WHERE just WHO. And they did that in a convincing manner ... the jury was gullible enough to buy the sideshow that came with the DT, i.e. Dr.Spitz, the grief expert, Dr.Furton, etc.

For all of you who agree with the verdict - think about FCA sitting by the pool, sipping her rum runner, laughing at how gullible the jury was to NOT send her to prison where she belongs. Think about the blood money she may make b/c she killed her child and got away with it.

The precedent set here is that it's OK to kill someone in Florida if you hide the body well enough that it does not get discovered for 6 months or at all. Actions displaying consciousness of guilt mean nothing. A mountain of circumstantial evidence means nothing. Just confuse the jurors with a lie of an opening statement and you will get off.

 

[c@rol]

I've been thinking a lot about the verdict and where our system failed us. I think the jury selection was a major part of the problem. One after another hundreds of intelligent educated people were brought before the judge. Most everyone who has a decent head on their shoulders watch the news, follow current events, has a job and responsibilities. One after another, these educated and intelligent people said 'yes, i'm familiar with the case' or 'I believe she is guilty'. With that, they were dismissed. If they remained neutral, the economy stopped these individuals from being able to serve because many are living paycheck to paycheck to keep heads above water. The system had to reach out to people who either had nothing better to do, no job and/or didn't follow the news or even read up on current events. Are these really the people we need to decide the fate of a murdering mother? Many of them expressed that they didn't want to be there, and were forced.. for reasons like 'I'd miss my husband too much' or 'I have a vacation coming up' . It seems clear that the group the law left to pick from was sub par. It would not surprise me if they all quickly agreed on the acquittal so they could return to their lives under a rock.

 

[beccalecca1]

Why wouldn't Casey just take the tape with her and dump it with the body?)

BBM.

Because the tape wasn't used on the bags, it was used on the child. It wasn't an afterthought it was a forethought. The bags, the disposal, came later after the child was dead.

That still doesn't answer the question... if she used the tape to apply to her daughter's nose/mouth, why would she leave it behind? I would have to think that if anyone was doing that, it's pretty obvious death is in the future, so why would you leave the murder weapon behind? It's duct tape, no one in the house would probably notice it was gone, so why not toss that in the trunk with the dead body?

 

[dvdman]

Normally I just click on the "thanks" icon but in this case I have to type it.
Thanks for a great post.

Ah, not true .... the most important question was answered - Who ? Who else had access to all of the evidence in the case ? Who DID NOT call 911 if it was an accident ? Who repeatedly lied to police ? Who dumped the Sunfire by the dumpster at the Amscot ? Who went partying for 31 days and didn't report her child missing ? Who tried to borrow a shovel from a neighbor ? Who claimed a nanny stole the child ? Who was NOT planning on telling her parents anything until CA tracked her down ? Who told her weekend friend in the car "I'm such a good liar" ? Who searched for "how to make chloroform" on the Interent ?

The State did not have to prove WHY,HOW,WHEN,WHERE just WHO. And they did that in a convincing manner ... the jury was gullible enough to buy the sideshow that came with the DT, i.e. Dr.Spitz, the grief expert, Dr.Furton, etc.

For all of you who agree with the verdict - think about FCA sitting by the pool, sipping her rum runner, laughing at how gullible the jury was to NOT send her to prison where she belongs. Think about the blood money she may make b/c she killed her child and got away with it.

The precedent set here is that it's OK to kill someone in Florida if you hide the body well enough that it does not get discovered for 6 months or at all. Actions displaying consciousness of guilt mean nothing. A mountain of circumstantial evidence means nothing. Just confuse the jurors with a lie of an opening statement and you will get off.

 

[Flossie JMO]

While I absolutely believe she is guilty, I was sent a lawyer's analysis of the evidence etc and why she was found not guilty, all very interesting stuff, we all have different opinions. I know I would have found her guilty. JMO

 

[annalia]

That still doesn't answer the question... if she used the tape to apply to her daughter's nose/mouth, why would she leave it behind? I would have to think that if anyone was doing that, it's pretty obvious death is in the future, so why would you leave the murder weapon behind? It's duct tape, no one in the house would probably notice it was gone, so why not toss that in the trunk with the dead body?

A better question might be, why would George, a former member of LE, leave it behind and then use it to put up posters?

 

[dvdman]

No one said Casey needed to be criminal genius to get off. All she needed was a Jury gullible enough to believe her lies and ignore the facts.

That still doesn't answer the question... if she used the tape to apply to her daughter's nose/mouth, why would she leave it behind? I would have to think that if anyone was doing that, it's pretty obvious death is in the future, so why would you leave the murder weapon behind? It's duct tape, no one in the house would probably notice it was gone, so why not toss that in the trunk with the dead body?

 

[beccalecca1]

Ah, not true .... the most important question was answered - Who ? Who else had access to all of the evidence in the case ? Who DID NOT call 911 if it was an accident ? Who repeatedly lied to police ? Who dumped the Sunfire by the dumpster at the Amscot ? Who went partying for 31 days and didn't report her child missing ? Who tried to borrow a shovel from a neighbor ? Who claimed a nanny stole the child ? Who was NOT planning on telling her parents anything until CA tracked her down ? Who told her weekend friend in the car "I'm such a good liar" ? Who searched for "how to make chloroform" on the Interent ?

The State did not have to prove WHY,HOW,WHEN,WHERE just WHO. And they did that in a convincing manner ... the jury was gullible enough to buy the sideshow that came with the DT, i.e. Dr.Spitz, the grief expert, Dr.Furton, etc.

For all of you who agree with the verdict - think about FCA sitting by the pool, sipping her rum runner, laughing at how gullible the jury was to NOT send her to prison where she belongs. Think about the blood money she may make b/c she killed her child and got away with it.

The precedent set here is that it's OK to kill someone in Florida if you hide the body well enough that it does not get discovered for 6 months or at all. Actions displaying consciousness of guilt mean nothing. A mountain of circumstantial evidence means nothing. Just confuse the jurors with a lie of an opening statement and you will get off.

The answer to some of your who questions are only a manner of opinion, not fact.

And, naturally, it is easy for the state to prove who in a convincing way to people who already convicted her. It is a lot more challenging to prove who to panel of jurors who are told to presume her innocent until they hear enough evidence to convict. Clearly they weren't able to convince them. That is a fact. So, I believe that statement that they provided enough convincing evidence is only opinion.

 

[Leah0107]

3 people in the Anthony home has access to Caylee and all evidence found at the crime scene. 3 people were caregivers to Caylee. On June 16th. CA was at work - that leaves 2. I believe GA when he said that FCA left with Caylee at 1 pm to drop caylee off at her fake nanny and go to her fake job and that they would be staying at the nannys that night. Even FCA's original statement to police said she left the house and dropped Caylee off at the nannys. So in a FCA twisted lying sort of way actually supports the statement that 'she left the house with Caylee' that day. So now we are down to 1 person, FCA. And no other person has come forward saying that Caylee was with them. = FCA was the last person to be with Caylee alive.

 

[beccalecca1]

I've been thinking a lot about the verdict and where our system failed us. I think the jury selection was a major part of the problem. One after another hundreds of intelligent educated people were brought before the judge. Most everyone who has a decent head on their shoulders watch the news, follow current events, has a job and responsibilities. One after another, these educated and intelligent people said 'yes, i'm familiar with the case' or 'I believe she is guilty'. With that, they were dismissed. If they remained neutral, the economy stopped these individuals from being able to serve because many are living paycheck to paycheck to keep heads above water. The system had to reach out to people who either had nothing better to do, no job and/or didn't follow the news or even read up on current events. Are these really the people we need to decide the fate of a murdering mother? Many of them expressed that they didn't want to be there, and were forced.. for reasons like 'I'd miss my husband too much' or 'I have a vacation coming up' . It seems clear that the group the law left to pick from was sub par. It would not surprise me if they all quickly agreed on the acquittal so they could return to their lives under a rock.

She wasn't convicted of murder during jury selection. And, the sole reason these people were selected was because they didn't follow current events or the news. I'm confused on how that point alone would make them less worthy of making a decision.

This post reminds me of a caller to Nancy the night of the verdict reading, the caller suggested that jurors have to be certified and take courses in order to render verdicts. Really?

 

[beccalecca1]

A better question might be, why would George, a former member of LE, leave it behind and then use it to put up posters?

Well, notice the tape was gone when they discovered the body? All of the tape was used up for the posters. All of it. If GA was covering up an accident, wouldn't he get rid of any evidence that ties him to the crime? :waitasec:

 

[kgeaux]

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.

Leah, the jury did not have to believe that she was not guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.........

They had to believe there was no reasonable doubt to find her guilty.

I disagree. Whatever became of the witness tampering investigation? I am hoping that it is very active and productive. JMO.

You mean into possible interference with a searcher's report? I believe that investigation is ongoing. The findings will not impact the findings of the jury, however.

The answer to queston number 1 was given by the defense team in "their" opening statement when they placed their client at the crime scene. The problem was they could "never" prove George was there too. It doesn't matter because she acted alone.

I forgot to comment on this quote earlier!

I do think it matters whether the jury believed Casey was alone with Caylee, or if George was in the residence.

 

[Kyle323]

That still doesn't answer the question... if she used the tape to apply to her daughter's nose/mouth, why would she leave it behind? I would have to think that if anyone was doing that, it's pretty obvious death is in the future, so why would you leave the murder weapon behind? It's duct tape, no one in the house would probably notice it was gone, so why not toss that in the trunk with the dead body?

Who knows why, but what is ridiculous, and I've heard similar questions from the jurors, is trying to find an answer to every single unimportant question relating to this case?!

- Why would she leave her purse in her car?
- How could she have disposed of the body without anyone seeing her?
- Why would she ask a neighbor to borrow a shovel?
- Why would she dispose of the body so close to her house?
Etc., etc.,etc.

There will always be NUMEROUS unanswered questions that really aren't relevant, but I guess are important to "Enquiring" minds.