*MERGED THREADS*GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? (Florida jury instructions added)

[Kentjbkent]

While it's my personal belief that ICA willfully killed Caylee with premeditation, I came to that conclusion after following this case for nearly three years and reading every single document in every single document dump. The jury, however, has only seen and heard a fraction of that evidence.

If I knew absolutely nothing of this case except what has been presented at trial thus far I would be unable to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I knew nothing of the case and I was on that jury, I would be troubled by a number of things - no cause of death, no crime scene, no direct evidence of exactly who caused the child to be dead, or how, or why, no evidence of how her body came to rest in those woods or who put it there.

Logically speaking, ICA was the last known person to have Caylee; Caylee was decomposing in the trunk of ICAs car; items from the A home were found with the body; ICA spent 31 days partying like it was 1999. I have no personal doubt that she committed cold blooded murder, but I don't think the evidence presented proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I predict the jury will be unable to reach a verdict (probably after days and days of going round and round about it). I also think that even if they do manage to come around to a guilty verdict, they will not recommend death for the same reasons I listed in paragraph 3. IMO there are just still too many unknowns for this jury to put a young female to death.

My two cents.

I believe it is actually to the BENEFIT of the jury that they have only heard a portion of the evidence that we, those who have followed this case on a daily basis, read over 10,000 pages of discovery, and know MUCH more than they do, are privy to.

I think the prosecution so far as done an EXCELLENT job of ONLY presenting what is necessary for the jury to consider in regards to the charges.

Think of all we have been privy to.....the antics of Leonard Padilla, the involvement of TES in the search, the behavior of the Anthonys, Casey stealing from her grandmother, Robyn Adams, the endless booty call boyfriends.......the list goes on and on....has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quest in deciding whether or not Caylee was killed by her mother, or died in an accidental drowning.

After opening statements, THAT was the only real question! Even Roy Kronk, who discovered the remains, doesn't play into the case AT THIS POINT....he will should Baez decide to implicate him in the death or accident coverup....

When I think of ALL that has transpired in the last three years, ALL the Discovery I have read, it is VERY VERY overhelming and is difficult to retain ALL the facts...but are they ALL really that important in seeking the answer of Murder vs. Drowning?

Have you ever had someone NOT familiar with the case ask you, "I have heard of Casey Anthony, but tell me again what happened?"

I have...and it is difficult to try to retell this whole three year saga...so I usually sum up with the details I feel are important...unless, of course, they have a few evenings to dedicate to just listen to me ramble on....:crazy:

And remember...the SA has NOT completed presenting their case! They have only concluded the first round. They will have yet another opportunity during the cross examination of defense witnesses, and yet a THIRD round when they are entitled to present REBUTTAL witnesses.

We have NOT heard the last of the prosecution speaking for Caylee. Do not forget this very important fact!!

 

[GeekyGirl]

We'll do this again after the defense. I've decided to keep watching JB's shenanigans. It would be hard to debate without actually knowing all that was said, lol.

Most definitely! Again, thanks for the intelligent discourse. It can be tough to find where I live, so it's a breath of fresh air when I get to engage in it!

 

[Kentjbkent]

Which is why I said, at this point in the trial. I'm not saying that ultimately there won't be enough for a murder conviction, but if I were a juror, and asked to vote based only on the trial so far, I don't think I could justify a murder conviction. MOO of course.

I PROMISE I am not trying to engage you in argument or change your opinion at this point, but could you explain your reasoning in believing you could not justify murder at this point? ( REALLY am trying to consider another's opinion based on facts known by jury)

SA stated in opening statements that they believe Caylee was murdered by her mother.

Defense stated in opening statements that Caylee drowned accidentally in the swimming pool.

Murder vs. Drowning (accident) according to opposing attorneys.

So if you do NOT believe Caylee was murdered, then I would assume that you believe it is more likely that Casey is telling the truth and Caylee drowned accidentally.

At THIS point, what leads you to believe this?

 

[Nali87]

Not being snarky, but how can one come to the conclusion that the death was the result of a criminal act if you don't know what caused the death? That's precisely why this is such a difficult case to prosecute, and more than likely why the defense risked going to trial. The defense isn't required to prove anything, only provide reasonable doubt that the state's theory of the crime is incorrect.

My opinion is, you can conclude it was a criminal act, again by all the circumstansial evidence: if it was an accident, why not report it? If Casey doesn't react normally, why not enter a psychological evaluation stating that? If I remember correctly, the defense didn't enter any psych evaluations. The chloroform searches, the chloroform, the duct tape, the way the body was disposed. The state cannot prove how exactly she died, but everything, imo, points in the direction of murder. Imo, it's mostly a case of analyzing all the evidence as one and eliminating non-plausible explanations. I think that's why they spent so much time on the chloroform - an accident theory doesn't explain the chloroform away.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I believe it is actually to the BENEFIT of the jury that they have only heard a portion of the evidence that we, those who have followed this case on a daily basis, read over 10,000 pages of discovery, and know MUCH more than they do, are privy to.

I think the prosecution so far as done an EXCELLENT job of ONLY presenting what is necessary for the jury to consider in regards to the charges.

Think of all we have been privy to.....the antics of Leonard Padilla, the involvement of TES in the search, the behavior of the Anthonys, Casey stealing from her grandmother, Robyn Adams, the endless booty call boyfriends.......the list goes on and on....has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quest in deciding whether or not Caylee was killed by her mother, or died in an accidental drowning.

After opening statements, THAT was the only real question! Even Roy Kronk, who discovered the remains, doesn't play into the case AT THIS POINT....he will should Baez decide to implicate him in the death or accident coverup....

When I think of ALL that has transpired in the last three years, ALL the Discovery I have read, it is VERY VERY overhelming and is difficult to retain ALL the facts...but are they ALL really that important in seeking the answer of Murder vs. Drowning?

Have you ever had someone NOT familiar with the case ask you, "I have heard of Casey Anthony, but tell me again what happened?"

I have...and it is difficult to try to retell this whole three year saga...so I usually sum up with the details I feel are important...unless, of course, they have a few evenings to dedicate to just listen to me ramble on....:crazy:

And remember...the SA has NOT completed presenting their case! They have only concluded the first round. They will have yet another opportunity during the cross examination of defense witnesses, and yet a THIRD round when they are entitled to present REBUTTAL witnesses.

We have NOT heard the last of the prosecution speaking for Caylee. Do not forget this very important fact!!

Agreed, but the question was initially "what would you vote at this point?" I hadn't been following the case until a few days ago (long story) so my point of view is very different from those of you who have been on board the whole time. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just objective.

 

[SMK]

The poll makes no distinction between the two types of murder.
I would say: Reasonable doubt as to Premeditated Murder, so cannot be found guilty.
First Degree Felony Murder: GUILTY.

 

[Moggie]

guilty - LWOP. Only because I feel that if I do not have the fortitude to administer the injection, I cannot ask someone else to.

 

[GeekyGirl]

My opinion is, you can conclude it was a criminal act, again by all the circumstansial evidence: if it was an accident, why not report it? If Casey doesn't react normally, why not enter a psychological evaluation stating that? If I remember correctly, the defense didn't enter any psych evaluations. The chloroform searches, the chloroform, the duct tape, the way the body was disposed. The state cannot prove how exactly she died, but everything, imo, points in the direction of murder. Imo, it's mostly a case of analyzing all the evidence as one and eliminating non-plausible explanations. I think that's why they spent so much time on the chloroform - an accident theory doesn't explain the chloroform away.

The jury has heard testimony that points to her not reacting in the manner a rational person would, and even her behavior in the courtroom could be interpreted by a juror as not "normal". Analyzing all of the evidence as one would be easier if it were presented as pieces to the puzzle of ONE theory of the death, but IMO it hasn't. How does the duct tape theory explain the chloroform? I respect your opinion, and I can see your reasoning, but mine is different, and that's important because the jury might find themselves in the same position.

 

[SMK]

Which is why I said, at this point in the trial. I'm not saying that ultimately there won't be enough for a murder conviction, but if I were a juror, and asked to vote based only on the trial so far, I don't think I could justify a murder conviction. MOO of course.

You make a good point. I believe some jurors will feel there IS reasonable doubt as to premeditated murder. Some will believe she is guilty of Felony first degree murder, due to the duct tape. Some may believe she covered up an accident, but did so in a criminal way which borders on felony murder. Of course, they will have to deliberate to a consensus. I do not envy them.

 

[Sedona722]

Guilty!

DP should be.....chloroform, duct tape and trunk of car.

 

[SMK]

My opinion is, you can conclude it was a criminal act, again by all the circumstansial evidence: if it was an accident, why not report it? If Casey doesn't react normally, why not enter a psychological evaluation stating that? If I remember correctly, the defense didn't enter any psych evaluations. The chloroform searches, the chloroform, the duct tape, the way the body was disposed. The state cannot prove how exactly she died, but everything, imo, points in the direction of murder. Imo, it's mostly a case of analyzing all the evidence as one and eliminating non-plausible explanations. I think that's why they spent so much time on the chloroform - an accident theory doesn't explain the chloroform away.

Some people have argued with the case of Madeleine McCann, that it was an accident which the parents covered up, because it made them look negligent. Many believed the same about the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. It is possible a juror could think the same in this case, and that the duct tape was staged for the Zanny kidnapping story.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I PROMISE I am not trying to engage you in argument or change your opinion at this point, but could you explain your reasoning in believing you could not justify murder at this point? ( REALLY am trying to consider another's opinion based on facts known by jury)

SA stated in opening statements that they believe Caylee was murdered by her mother.

Defense stated in opening statements that Caylee drowned accidentally in the swimming pool.

Murder vs. Drowning (accident) according to opposing attorneys.

So if you do NOT believe Caylee was murdered, then I would assume that you believe it is more likely that Casey is telling the truth and Caylee drowned accidentally.

At THIS point, what leads you to believe this?

No worries, I know my opinion is frustrating. I posted a lengthy explanation earlier, but I'll add that opening statements aren't evidence, so based on the state's case so far, I just don't think that I could completely rule out an accidental death if I were a juror. It's not my personal opinion as a person posting on the Internet and having access to much more information than the jury has, just how I feel I'd vote, at this point, if I were in their shoes.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Agreed, but the question was initially "what would you vote at this point?" I hadn't been following the case until a few days ago (long story) so my point of view is very different from those of you who have been on board the whole time. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just objective.

Which is exactly why I am so interested in your viewpoint....you are like our own little mock jury member! :great:


:seeya:

 

[Nali87]

The jury has heard testimony that points to her not reacting in the manner a rational person would, and even her behavior in the courtroom could be interpreted by a juror as not "normal". Analyzing all of the evidence as one would be easier if it were presented as pieces to the puzzle of ONE theory of the death, but IMO it hasn't. How does the duct tape theory explain the chloroform? I respect your opinion, and I can see your reasoning, but mine is different, and that's important because the jury might find themselves in the same position.

Yes it is important. The duct tape theory: Casey chloroforms (is that a word? lol) Caylee until she's out of it, so that she doesn't struggle. Then she wraps the ducttape around her nose and mouth, suffocating her in the process. But, I have to concede a point. This hasn't been made as clear as possible by the state. I think the question the jury will ponder on and hopefully Linda will drive home (like, the constant "Where is Caylee" in the opening statement) will be "If a child is already dead, why use chloroform (especially the high amounts that were found in the car and that experts testified couldn't have come from household products) and ducttape? If it's an accident, why not report it? I really believe they will focus on those two points and drive it all home.

But you've raised very good points that I agree with. I don't think the jury will be 100% convinced on how Casey did it, thankfully the law doesn't require them to!

 

[cecybeans]

Here is what I am struggling to understand.

Why would it be her first instinct to try and cover up a negligent accident? How would it be consistent with her past behavior?

Casey has certainly been caught committing bad behavior and caught in lies, but I cannot think of ONE incident where she tried to "cover up"!

Exactly HOW did she attempt to "cover up" stealing from her Grandmother? She didn't....When caught, she just copped an attitude...

Exactly HOW did she attempt to "cover up" stealing from Amy H? She certainly didn't..

I also do not understand why...even considering her twisted mindframe....why she would have felt the need to cover up an "accidental death" even if she was negligent. What was she at risk of? Had she called 911...or her parents....she certainly would NOT have spent the last three years in JAIL...

And I do NOT buy the "she was afraid of what her mother would do"....Casey has never shown any sign of being afraid of ANYONE when she has gotten caught committing a crime (like stealing from Grandma)....and do you really believe that she assumed her mother would NEVER forgive her for neglecting Caylee resulting in her drowning, but Mom WOULD eventually forgive her IF she got caught dumping Caylee's body on Suburban in an attempt to "cover up"??

Sure wish someone who believes it is POSSIBLE that Caylee drowned would answer these questions....

ITA on her cover up behavior with one caveat. We really don't know the extent of the lies she may have told at first regarding her Grandma's account before they got to the truth and she was spared having Amy ask her anything because she was already in jail. She certainly covered up with a "you were sleepwalking" story for Amy's $400. What I have noticed is that - you are so right - she has no fear of anyone at all and either reluctantly cops to lying when absolutely cornered (like at Universal) or gets furious and throws a hissy, like when she was in jail and the questions got too intense. Otherwise, she thinks of all kinds of "cover up" lies until she's completely painted into a corner. All the garbage she told her mom and her friends were cover up lies to deflect questions about Caylee.

I also agree she would have thought of an elaborate "cover up" lie if it had been an accidental death (her OS is an example but it's two lies - it's a lie about the accident and a lie about who is responsible). I think the kidnapping cover up lie was to prevent anyone finding Caylee because if they did she sure needed a way to explain that duct tape across her face and an "accident" just wouldn't do it. It may have been to cover up her actual cause of death at that point as well because she had no way of knowing that her baby's corpse was well on the way to skeletonization after July 16 and she may have thought forensic testing could be done.

Imo, ICA's whole entire existence has been a cover-up lie. If she is ever caught or called on any inconsistency, she gets furious and/or throws somebody else under the bus. The only thing I ever believed coming out of her mouth was that she guessed she was a "spiteful little *advertiser censored*". She tried to cover up that fact too, only she's just not very good at it.

 

[Kentjbkent]

No worries, I know my opinion is frustrating. I posted a lengthy explanation earlier, but I'll add that opening statements aren't evidence, so based on the state's case so far, I just don't think that I could completely rule out an accidental death if I were a juror. It's not my personal opinion as a person posting on the Internet and having access to much more information than the jury has, just how I feel I'd vote, at this point, if I were in their shoes.

OH NO!! Not frustrating at ALL.....interesting to me!!!

And I know that opening statements are not evidence but they ARE statements of what each side INTENDS to prove....

So Baez has put us on notice that he INTENDS to prove that Caylee died accidentally in the swimming pool....

 

[Leah0107]

I have to start by saying that I didn't know really anything about this case when I started watching the trial. As it progressed, I started to believe her guilty, but probably through accidental means (i.e., she used chloroform and duct tape in some manner and she died.) As time progressed this is where I am at.

I believe that Casey alone is responsible for Caylee's death.
I believe she thought about killing Caylee - internet searches-chloroform, neck breaking, etc.
I believe she was the last person to be with her.
I believe she was in the truck of Casey's car
I believe she put duct tape on her face
I believe she disposed of her body
I believe that her words and actions during the 31 days IS evidence and it speaks loudly of guilt and coverup.

Even if I don't know exactly how she died, or exactly why, doesn't the evidence show that she was the last person to be with Caylee alive. She was with Caylee in the morning and then she was never seen again. And no other 'reasonable' believable explanation has been offered for June 16 or any of her actions during the 31 days (and beyond) and no one else has come forward to dispute these things.
I've been having a hard time with the premeditation thing except I keep going back over all the internet searches. Chloroform may not premeditate death - like I'm going to kill my daughter with Chloroform, but the neck breaking, internal bleeding, in addition to the Chloroform keeps resounding in my head. I do believe she had thought about not only a life without Caylee, but offing her in some way. Is that enough for premeditation?
It's just not a coincIndence that there was Chloroform searches on the computer and high levels of Chloroform found in the air of the car as well as chloroform residue found in the carpet in the trunk.
If I believe that she died by Casey's hand, which I do, the only other alternative is felony murder as a result of aggravated child abuse - (i.e., chloroform, duct tape, trunk)

She had access to every piece of physical evidence presented. So did others but there hasn't been (yet) any reasonable doubt offered to make me believe that anyone else except Casey is responsible for Caylee's death.
So to my surprise, considering where I started I am leaning more toward 1st degree (premeditated) murder than even felony murder.
LWOP

There are NO COINCIDENCES!!

 

[SMK]

Here is what I am struggling to understand.

Why would it be her first instinct to try and cover up a negligent accident? How would it be consistent with her past behavior?

Casey has certainly been caught committing bad behavior and caught in lies, but I cannot think of ONE incident where she tried to "cover up"!

Exactly HOW did she attempt to "cover up" stealing from her Grandmother? She didn't....When caught, she just copped an attitude...

Exactly HOW did she attempt to "cover up" stealing from Amy H? She certainly didn't..

I also do not understand why...even considering her twisted mindframe....why she would have felt the need to cover up an "accidental death" even if she was negligent. What was she at risk of? Had she called 911...or her parents....she certainly would NOT have spent the last three years in JAIL...

And I do NOT buy the "she was afraid of what her mother would do"....Casey has never shown any sign of being afraid of ANYONE when she has gotten caught committing a crime (like stealing from Grandma)....and do you really believe that she assumed her mother would NEVER forgive her for neglecting Caylee resulting in her drowning, but Mom WOULD eventually forgive her IF she got caught dumping Caylee's body on Suburban in an attempt to "cover up"??

Sure wish someone who believes it is POSSIBLE that Caylee drowned would answer these questions....

OK, you are making really excellent points, and your analysis is great. BUT: What if Casey felt her Mom would NEVER forgive her for letting Caylee accidentally drown, but WOULD forgive her for having a child who Zanny the Nanny kidnapped. A child missing for years and years. Casey arrogantly thought she could stick to that story and get away with it.

 

[SMK]

I have to start by saying that I didn't know really anything about this case when I started watching the trial. As it progressed, I started to believe her guilty, but probably through accidental means (i.e., she used chloroform and duct tape in some manner and she died.) As time progressed this is where I am at.

I believe that Casey alone is responsible for Caylee's death.
I believe she thought about killing Caylee - internet searches-chloroform, neck breaking, etc.
I believe she was the last person to be with her.
I believe she was in the truck of Casey's car
I believe she put duct tape on her face
I believe she disposed of her body
I believe that her words and actions during the 31 days IS evidence and it speaks loudly of guilt and coverup.

Even if I don't know exactly how she died, or exactly why, doesn't the evidence show that she was the last person to be with Caylee alive. She was with Caylee in the morning and then she was never seen again. And no other 'reasonable' believable explanation has been offered for June 16 or any of her actions during the 31 days (and beyond) and no one else has come forward to dispute these things.
I've been having a hard time with the premeditation thing except I keep going back over all the internet searches. Chloroform may not premeditate death - like I'm going to kill my daughter with Chloroform, but the neck breaking, internal bleeding, in addition to the Chloroform keeps resounding in my head. I do believe she had thought about not only a life without Caylee, but offing her in some way. Is that enough for premeditation?
It's just not a coincIndence that there was Chloroform searches on the computer and high levels of Chloroform found in the air of the car as well as chloroform residue found in the carpet in the trunk.
If I believe that she died by Casey's hand, which I do, the only other alternative is felony murder as a result of aggravated child abuse - (i.e., chloroform, duct tape, trunk)

She had access to every piece of physical evidence presented. So did others but there hasn't been (yet) any reasonable doubt offered to make me believe that anyone else except Casey is responsible for Caylee's death.
So to my surprise, considering where I started I am leaning more toward 1st degree (premeditated) murder than even felony murder.
LWOP

There are NO COINCIDENCES!!

The way you have laid it out is convincing, and I am sure some jurors are already thinking like this. That is what is so fascinating: The competing opinions here may well be happening with the jurors as well!

 

[Nali87]

Some people have argued with the case of Madeleine McCann, that it was an accident which the parents covered up, because it made them look negligent. Many believed the same about the parents of JonBenet Ramsey. It is possible a juror could think the same in this case, and that the duct tape was staged for the Zanny kidnapping story.

Those cases haven't made it to court though. I was very young during the Jon Benet Ramsey case. It's late now, 3AM :crazy:, but I will be reading up on it tomorrow. Now regarding Madeleine McCann's, her body was never found, so I don't really put much value on what's been said. There's really not much evidence in that case to conclude anything. Nothing compared to all the evidence in this case. On that note, time for my beauty sleep. Goodnight all. :rocker: