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

[The Eunice Burns]

I'll give you my theory, even if it opens the room for insults in my direction

Since GA and CA were rebuilding their relationship, he didn't want something bad to happen to Caylee on his watch, it would reflect upon him and being a bad grandparent.

GA threw Casey into the mix because it would also reflect her as a bad parent for not paying attention to Caylee.

And, maybe neither one of them wanted to cause so much pain to CA by telling her what truly happened, maybe they both were afraid she'd lose it. But, it would be a lot easier for someone in their shoes to believe that if it was covered up maybe it'll go over more smoothly. That would take their personal responsibility out of the equation and they could blame someone else for it.

MOO.

I disagree. For the reason that Casey and George did not have the relationship dynamic that would have permitted the sort of plot you put forward. To be in league together to protect Cindy as you suggest, would require a level of trust that the two did not have. When Casey found out she was pregnant, she did not run to George for help. Cindy handled Casey's messes. George was marginalized and allowed himself to be. No way I can see him and Casey working together. And all of this *noble* conspiring to protect Cindy? Why should Casey want to protect Cindy from pain? She didn't give a rat's paw about her for the 31 days. But she did when she let George triple bag Caylee and throw her in the swamp? Oh, wait. I forgot about Kronk. He had to be brought in to help pull this off somehow. Let's see---where can we work him in? Meanwhile, her daughter and his granddaughter decomposed in a swamp all to protect Cindy? Help me understand how that makes thing go more "smoothly".

MO

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

I know silly comparison however it's late here so please forgive me...in the example I gave, I am the one who called 911 btw not the person who caused the accident...so we are going to the house full of liars....

Yes but each side has stated that all of the A's lied/hid evidence at some point during this case. Cindy lied on the stand.

If Casey was the ONLY one who lived in that house, the only one who was responsible for the care of Caylee, the only one with access to the family computer, the gas cans, the shed, the pool..I could go on and on. She wasn't and they were all proved to be liars or not forthcoming throughout the entire case.

Cindy lied on the stand to COVER FOR HER DAUGHTER. It isn't like she made herself look good doing that.

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic is saying because FCA lived in the house with other people it is "too hard" to figure out who did it.

 

[MarthaM]

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!

I agree with this to an extent. I can't really blame the public, but I do think that the prosecution might have acted differently had this not been such a publicized case. They should have taken their time and built a stronger case. It's hard to know for sure at this point, but I bet some of the key players would have said and done things that the prosecution could have used to get the conviction they wanted.

The only thing I will say as far as so many people comparing Scott Peterson with Casey Anthony...and I KNOW state does not have to prove motive...but Scott's motive was far more understandable to the average person IMO...girlfriend on the side, wants to be single, doesn't want wife and kids. The motive the state used for Casey was dubious, IMO. Cindy took care of Caylee...everyone knows that. Casey could have left her there for good any day of the week and Cindy would have been in hog heaven. So that is one main difference to me.

I agree. Not only did Peterson's jury learn that he had referred to losing his wife before she was even missing, but there was also potential life insurance money as another possible motive. While the State doesn't have to prove motive, I think almost any jury feels more comfortable convicting if they can see a motive. 'It's not easy to party when you have a kid so I guess I better kill her' just didn't cut it, IMO.

That's not evidence of drowning, they were simply pictures with a theory added to it.

It was enough for the judge to allow the defense to present their 'accidental drowning' theory in their closing. Really, all you'd have to show is that there was a pool, the child liked to go in the pool, the pool had a ladder, and there you go! It's a defense theory that they could present, and that's all they have to do--they don't have the burden of proof.

 

[jjenny]

Well Scott Peterson could have divorced his wife. And most men who are cheating don't kill their wives. So why exactly is that so much more believable as a possible motive?

 

[HatesSociopaths]

I agree with this to an extent. I can't really blame the public, but I do think that the prosecution might have acted differently had this not been such a publicized case. They should have taken their time and built a stronger case. It's hard to know for sure at this point, but I bet some of the key players would have said and done things that the prosecution could have used to get the conviction they wanted.



I agree. Not only did Peterson's jury learn that he had referred to losing his wife before she was even missing, but there was also potential life insurance money as another possible motive. While the State doesn't have to prove motive, I think almost any jury feels more comfortable convicting if they can see a motive. 'It's not easy to party when you have a kid so I guess I better kill her' just didn't cut it, IMO.



It was enough for the judge to allow the defense to present their 'accidental drowning' theory in their closing. Really, all you'd have to show is that there was a pool, the child liked to go in the pool, the pool had a ladder, and there you go! It's a defense theory that they could present, and that's all they have to do--they don't have the burden of proof.

BBM. The prosecution missed on the motive, mainly because LA and CA didn't give the testimony, but with the creative license JB took to create a narrative in the OS the SA should have done the same! The fight with CA the night before June 16 lit the rage which fueled the evil intention to get back at CA and show her just how unfit a mother she accused her of being. "Maybe I am just a spiteful b#$@*."

The flurry of cell phone calls on June 16 show the agitation Casey had to find a sitter, calling tthe same number over and over and over. The problem could not be solved. Casey felt CA and GA were working against her, refusing to watch Caylee as they disapproved of her friends and lifestyle. This was their only way to keep her in check, they thought. The only way to get her to be more of a mother. This made Casey VERY angry, how dare they ruin my night! I want to see my new and wonderful boyfriend Tony! And so she solved it in a way only a cold-blooded sociopath could. She killed Caylee, put her in the trunk, and went to be with Tony. She KNEW she would kill Caylee beforehand if necessary, and had the duct tape (with steak knife to cut it), plus the chloroform to knock her out first.

 

[Just Jayla]

Big duh, I disagree with the verdict and feel the jury did not give the case at least the proper respect and time it deserved.
On Websleuths radio a couple of weeks ago, RichardH and WiseOldOwl discussed whether or not a jury is, specifically Constitutionally, required to be honest; I know that the Constitution does not address this directly, but I do believe a jury, based upon the structure of the Constitution, is passed the torch of honesty. That is, the Constitution assumes, specifically Amendments 4-8, that our government is dishonest. Therefore, in order to rectify this, the founders and subsequent lawmakers put the burden of being a trier of fact on the jury of peers. If a jury takes this responsibility seriously and abhores the dishonesty of a government, there is an implied expectation that they should be honest and honor their duty.

Case in point: If (potential) jurors were intellectually honest, the number of them that get out of jury duty, which seems proportionately high, would not get out of jury duty. But people cannot be bothered with an intrusion into their own lives, forget the higher importance of serving the Constitution's beautiful gift of self-governance.

Thank goodness our military takes the honor of serving their country more seriously than these jurors. They take time away from their civilian lives, time out of their weekends, to serve with honesty and integrity. I just don't feel that this jury wanted to give the time and review (yes, there needed to be a review in spite of the weeks they sat there) and the state suffered for it, Caylee suffered for it-and had the verdict gone the other way, many many people would say KC was suffering for it.

ETA: In fact, Justices on the Supreme Court did say that John Mohammed suffered for the expediency of his appelate process in Virginia. So, on both sides of the fence, it is agreed and maybe Constitutionally interpreted, that due review is part of the due process.

ETAA-Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, just :crazy: ol' me

 

[pcrum12]

I have read every post in both of these threads and I would just like to give my :twocents:

For those who think the verdict is wrong: Many of you have been on this case since day 1. You have read all of the documents/post here and on other forums, articles from outside sources and know many things that were not presented to the jury. Even before this trial started many of you KNEW she was guilty and nothing was going to change your mind. You have that right...you read everything...you invested time and emotions. I see many of you placing in your post things that were NOT brought out in the trial, things that the jury never saw/heard. If any of you had been on the jury you would have voted Guilty simply from emotion.

(Snipped for space) - Let me ask you something. If you had been involved in the searches for Caylee, every moment you were able, looking, looking everywhere, worrying nights, sleuthing here in the forums, wondering if she was telling a fib or the truth for months only to find out in opening statements of the trial that Caylee was dead on 6/16/08, would you be so inclined to forgive all of what she put so many people through? Yes, I believe she is guilty, absolutely. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones that is able to connect the dots but, when the truth is obscured to this extent only to realize it was all for naught anyway, she has a Huge debt to pay. Not to me. Not to the justice system. To her daughter. She's destroyed lives, reputations, cost atrocious amounts of money to the Florida taxpayers and didn't have one thing to say for herself when she had the opportunity in court. 2nd chance? I'd rather Caylee had that but, that's not to be.

And I for one can respect how you feel since you are so emotionally involved. But, my understanding of the thread is for those of us that agree/disagree with the verdict explain why we do. In order to agree with the jury/verdict, you have to not rely on emotions or anything other than what was presented in trial. For those that do not agree, the evidence relied upon must be balanced same or the thread starts to derail. JMO. I think that's why the posts get so heated here at times. lol. It's certainly understandable. I'm not from Fl, but I would like to express thanks for your volounteering in the search. Knowing your search was in vain must really weigh on you. It must also be terrible to know your goverment foot the bill for the trial and investigation and you the taxpayer will literally pay the price. None of us may never know what really happened unfortunately. And for that, I'm truly saddened. I'm sad for Caylee, but I'm also sad for Casey. All JMOO

 

[natsound]

In multi-tasking I missed some tidbits of testimony during the trial... Was the following presented?

Casey downloaded and saved the death penalty cartoon in a folder on July 8. She looked at it again on July 10. I have always been perplexed, if this was an accident, then why the concern or interest in this topic..

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/arti...casey-anthony-deposition-sandra-cawn-0413.pdf
On page 12 of Deputy Sandra Cawn's deposition she states the following about the anti-death penalty cartoon found on Casey's laptop:

To get back on topic, I did not agree with the verdict but I know every small detail in this case and a lot of it was not presented in court. I am not sure why it was not presented, prejudicial perhaps... I felt the pertinent information got lost in the minutae... The State could have done a better job at pounding on the crucial evidence...

This post is my opinion only...

JVM brought that up during the trial. She said it's a common cartoon that perhaps some of the jurors might have seen before and agree with, and SA probably didn't want to take the chance of offending any of them by presenting it as evidence against KC.

 

[pcrum12]

May I remind you this was a MURDER case.
The dufense's OS was about sexual abuse. Baez played a dirty trick. The judge should have stopped that bs when it started.

Yes I know this was a Murder case. A Murder Case in which the SA used the 31 days to "prove" it. Playing on the juries emotions. The molestation was presented by DT to explain why she acted the way she did in the 31 days. Considering the 31 days is exactly what most can't get past and the whole PT case was built around and presented in that fashion (day 1, where's Caylee, Day 2, where's Caylee?), all though IMO doesn't equal murder, wouldn't it be appropriate for your DT to counter that? Give reason? Molestation is hard to prove. No one really knows if it happened OR NOT. I just happen to believe it and I didn't just start believing it during DT OS. I've thought that since day 1.

 

[pcrum12]

I had asked in that thread whether that photo was shown in trial. I've gone through a lot of the testimony but haven't been able to verify it (but it's difficult since they don't show everything on camera). If it wasn't shown that would be odd since there was a ruling that stain evidence would be allowed.

The liner and pictures of the liner were presented. However, the picture posted on here was enhanced by ws member. iirc.

 

[beccalecca1]

I dare say that a baby stuffed into a garbage bag, with duct tape wrapped around her head thrown into the woods, "along with" a mother, the last one with her child, who never reported her missing and never even did report her missing, it was the child's grandmother who eventually reported it, then continued to build lie upon lie about her child, is without a doubt real evidence.

Making up imaginary possibilities to include others, some that defy all logic, isn't evidence.

And the claims that she and George would have been arrested had Caylee accidently gotten into the pool and drowned, isn't necessarily true. An accidental death is many times treated as such by LE, an unfortunate accident with no charges.

JMHO

I don't recall stating that her and GA would be arrested if they told the police the truth. In fact, I know I didn't say that because that isn't something I believe.

And, I take offense in saying that my beliefs defy logic. I'm sorry, I just don't agree that they do.

 

[beccalecca1]

Originally Posted by beccalecca1
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?)

Because she taped Caylee at home?

I'm not sure what your response means. Would you mind elaborating?

 

[pcrum12]

Good Morning Becca!

 

[beccalecca1]

Caylee had a MOTHER. George and Cindy both worked. Casey didn't have a job and according to Cindy and George, Casey was responsible for Caylee. I don't get where the confusion is???? He said after Casey and Caylee left, he went to work. His work hours are verified. Do you think George went to work after finding Caylee in the pool? I don't think so.

I don't feel that is so far fetched after knowing GA went to work after smelling a "dead body" in the trunk, and not seeing his granddaughter for 31 days. Not far-fetched at all.

 

[beccalecca1]

But only Casey has admitted (through her DT) that she was there at the house when Caylee died. The jury was supposed to look at the facts...not make up another scenario to fit the evidence. If they believed George (g-d bless him) was the one who discarded Caylee then they did consider the DT's OS as evidence...and that is WRONG!

The DT never said who placed Caylee in the swamp. I recommend listening to their OS again, because they never pointed the finger at either one of them for placing the body. It's just my opinion that GA had the know how to do it and get away with it.

And, Casey and GA were both in that house, through both the OS and GA testimony. I don't think it's known when Caylee actually died.

 

[beccalecca1]

I wish they had been able to submit this for evidence. I know it would have done it for me.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.02.16 Document Release: Stain on Trunk Liner

I've seen this image, but don't feel it's an actual depiction of a human body in the trunk. That could be anything. And, they probably weren't allowed to use it because it's all based on opinion, and it's an altered image of the trunk.

How would you be able to get human decomposition out of the particle board in the spare tire cover? I don't believe anyone is capable of doing that, including professionals. And, I don't believe they had the particle board replaced and just put the old, fluid stained carpet back on it.

 

[beccalecca1]

Thank you for responding. I see your point.

However, to me, it is indicative of someone harming Caylee and covering it up.

I understand that, but I feel that is a thought process that is backed by emotion.

 

[beccalecca1]

IMO these are fair questions, but IIRC, JB in the trial never presented any thing specific to corroborate this line of thought. If so, then it seems JB left out a critical foundation to his case (not that this mattered to the jury, in retrospect).

This scenario where GA was officially responsible for Caylee would also have given ICA herself a swell opportunity to get on the stand and defend herself with this direct testimony.

:boohoo::guitar:

I disagree, I think that since JB was only allowed to admit so much evidence (IIRC there were many sidebars where he couldn't solicit specific testimony or introduce certain pieces of evidence), and he worked with what he was allowed to have introduced. I think with what he provided, it is reasonable to believe that Caylee was able to get out of the house without an adult present, was able to get into the pool without an adult present, and there was enough reason for both GA and Casey to attempt to cover up an accident.

 

[beccalecca1]

Leave the child with who? The A's were working people. Casey only "pretended" to work. You can't leave your child at home if there's no one there.

The A's were not working people... Cindy was. GA has gone through many jobs, one ends and he plays sitting duck until he finds one that he feels suits him. Read his deposition; Cindy was the worker in the house, GA was more like the "get a job for my hobbies" type.

 

[beccalecca1]

Precisely. One reason I've heard why ICA made the "accident" look like a murder is because she was afraid of CA.

But to let ICA off on that excuse sets a terrible precedent:

A mother can now kill a child, obstruct the investigation that might solve the crime, and go free. Why?

Because she obstructed LE for fear that Aunt Mildred in Kalamazoo might have gotten mad at her for being honest.

:bricks::bricks:

I'm sorry, I feel this post contradicts itself. If it's an accident, then a mother wouldn't be killing her child and walking free.