Sidebar Discussion

[BigFatMommyDog]

:floorlaugh: Well at least it's my summer. Btw, true story - same daughter called me the other day and said her car wouldn't start. Three guesses as to what the first thing I reached for in the garage was. I'm not becoming GA am I?

Oh I don't know... I have gas cans - three or so... And I our like them very much (Where is Dr. Fessel when you need him?)

In any event, watch for the fallout...

Here we go

 

[bayouland]

Personally, I do not support KC, I do however support our legal system, and for over 2 years, my position on this case has been that the prosecution failed to prove KC guilty on the first 3 counts. I do not hold this position in an effort to cause friction, although, by the nature of an opposing opinion to the majority, friction will occur. MOO

BBM. I am just wondering if you watched the trial since you made your mind up before the trial.

 

[Well Done 99]

Personally, I do not support KC, I do however support our legal system, and for over 2 years, my position on this case has been that the prosecution failed to prove KC guilty on the first 3 counts. I do not hold this position in an effort to cause friction, although, by the nature of an opposing opinion to the majority, friction will occur. MOO

Majority here TDA, but certainly no friction! Always a pleasure to read your honest posts and see somebody willing to remain steadfast in their conviction (regardless of their view)

 

[MarthaM]

BBM. I am just wondering if you watched the trial since you made your mind up before the trial.

I'd bet that most people who watched the trial had already made up their minds beforehand.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

BBM. I am just wondering if you watched the trial since you made your mind up before the trial.

Of course I did, and prior to the trial starting, my opinion was, if the prosecution did not present anything that we did not already know via the Sunshine Law, that I believed there was a strong possiblity that KC would be acquitted of the first 3 charges.

After watching the PT's CIC, and disregarding the DT's opening statement, I continued to believe that the state did not prove the first 3 charges BARD.
After watching the PT's rebuttal, my opinion remained the same.

 

[Meri]

um, have you tried this? or do you have a degree in duct tape? I have seen this happen, and proved it to myself during this trial

Even if this were possible, and I'm thinking not as there wasn't enough time during that trial to do an exact experiment on the tape, how do you explain the tape landing on the bottom of the face so, so tight that the mandible is held in place?

 

[LambChop]

Unfortunately Caylee is dead and no amount of speculation about the duct tape will ever change the opinions of the majority of the people who believe as the State of Florida does that KC put duct tape on her child's face. The juror's who came forward and spoke all agreed they felt KC was guilty of something in the death of her child but could not agree on what she should be charged with. It was not the State that failed, it was the system itself that failed. We expect juror's to do their job and it is better that if they were to error they do so by coming back with NG. Juries are not perfect, they are made up of humans. But it never changes the evidence that was presented. There is no other logical explanation for that duct tape to be there than what was reported by the ME. Just because a police officer did not do his job should not reflect on the whole system. And at some point you have to think about what makes the most sense, what is most logical and trust and respect the professional's iinvestigative report.

My opinion is the State could have presented more to the jury so they could "get it". This was not done for whatever reason. But she is free.

As far as the FBI and the DNA. Isn't it wonderful that in this day and age that we are able to find so much as a skin cell that fell from an FBI investigator onto the duct tape. It's not an error. These things happen. Crimes don't happen in a vacumm. The only one who would benefit criticizing the investigative work was the DT. We should be in awe that these departments for their capabilities and the fact they are available to us to solve crimes.

I often think about the neighbor who reported that KC was walking the dog and the dog did their business on their lawn. When they asked her to pick it up KC claimed it was not her dog. Three pieces of duct tape from 7 to 9 inches, one layered on top of another and another on top of that reaching from one side of Caylee face to the other. It should not have been there but it was.......KC claims not to have put it there but then again "it was not her dog". jmo

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Personally, I do not support KC, I do however support our legal system, and for over 2 years, my position on this case has been that the prosecution failed to prove KC guilty on the first 3 counts. I do not hold this position in an effort to cause friction, although, by the nature of an opposing opinion to the majority, friction will occur. MOO

Oh Devil - your opine has never been in my radar screen. Never even thought about it - your nic has put your point of view upfront - and I appreciate that. We can disagree - been there and done that. You have your point of view and I have mine. I recollect a tweet for R Hornsby a couple weeks ago - he noted that the OJ jury failed, the CA Jury failed, the Knox jury (er tribunal failed) and Bob Ward jury got it right. Not the first time, not the last.

 

[coco puff]

Personally, I do not support KC, I do however support our legal system, and for over 2 years, my position on this case has been that the prosecution failed to prove KC guilty on the first 3 counts. I do not hold this position in an effort to cause friction, although, by the nature of an opposing opinion to the majority, friction will occur. MOO

So you believe KC did not murder Caylee but disposed of her body in a trash heap but was still in some sort of denial of her death until dec 11 AND LE over-charged her and did not prove any of the charges against her anyway?

 

[MarthaM]

Of course I did, and prior to the trial starting, my opinion was, if the prosecution did not present anything that we did not already know via the Sunshine Law, that I believed there was a strong possiblity that KC would be acquitted of the first 3 charges.

After watching the PT's CIC, and disregarding the DT's opening statement, I continued to believe that the state did not prove the first 3 charges BARD.
After watching the PT's rebuttal, my opinion remained the same.

As the trial unfolded, I started expecting a hung jury. Even during closing arguments, I thought that's how it would end. I was surprised they reached a verdict--any verdict--because it was just that kind of case.

I went into the case not knowing what had really happened and not having a strong opinion about it, but I really didn't expect to come out of it the same way. I still don't know what happened here.

 

[Aedrys]

I've got to say, there is a difference here now. We've gone round and round and round in the same circles, with the same explanations so many times it makes my head hurt. And STILL, some people just don't get it and never will. I don't know about anyone else, but yes, that makes me frustrated beyond belief and not as open and charitable as I used to be. I'm not obnoxious and rude, but honestly, I am just tired of having to explain why I feel Casey did this horrible crime over and over again. I keep referencing the same solid science, which not only keeps getting ignored by some, but now some have come forward with their own fantasy science to explain things. It's just unreal how badly some people just don't want to believe that Casey is guilty. Unbelievable, even.

What is said about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Yep, I think I've gone insane...I'm just glad I have like minded people here to suffer with, LOL. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean she's innocent. It just means the system failed. Casey is guilty of murdering of her baby, and I will believe that until the day I die.

 

[pcrum12]

It appears that some think I'm just trying to cause friction. I assure all that is not the case. I simply agree with the verdict for I believe the PT did not prove that 1) Casey committed murder, 2) that Caylee WAS murdered, and 3) that Casey was even guilty of the lessor included charges. As to any theory, I've not honed in on one, I have a couple that I go back and forth on. But none the less they are simply that - theories. One may contradict another as I siphor through the evidence or lack there of trying to make sense of it all. Some of my post are more thought out than others. So if I have offended anyone with my imperfect thoughts and you feel I'm wasting your time, I do apologize. I'm not a lawyer, detective, scientist, or a chemist and never claimed to be. I'm simply interested in this case and happen to have a different opinion than the majority on here. I'm not nearly as well spoken as most of you but I'm far from stupid, an alien. I'm certainly not trying to be a comedian, Nor am I from a bazzaro world. But by all means feel free to ignore me should you chose.

 

[logicalgirl]

How do you think I feel not having a degree in duct tape? :floorlaugh:

NO! - Concerned Papa! Tell me it isn't so! I am getting so many shocks I don't think I can handle it. First one then the other...I think I may have to take to my sofa....in a swoon...:dramaqueen:

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

So you believe KC did not murder Caylee but disposed of her body in a trash heap but was still in some sort of denial of her death until dec 11 AND LE over-charged her and did not prove any of the charges against her anyway?

Yes, I believe Caylee died in a tragic accident, KC had a mental break, placed Caylee in the woods (trash heap if you prefer), remained in denial until Dec 11th, and that KC was not guilty of the murder or child abuse charges against her.

I think Caylee slipped out the door, climbed the ladder, and drowned in the pool. I think KC was on the computer or texting when this occurred. In the everyday real world, parents get sidetracked, and children run into the road and get killed by cars in the blink of an eye. In Florida, hundreds of children drown every year and how many of those deaths are caused by a parent getting sidetracked for a couple of minutes, because that is all it takes.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[miakelly]

Oh Devil - your opine has never been in my radar screen. Never even thought about it - your nic has put your point of view upfront - and I appreciate that. We can disagree - been there and done that. You have your point of view and I have mine. I recollect a tweet for R Hornsby a couple weeks ago - he noted that the OJ jury failed, the CA Jury failed, the Knox jury (er tribunal failed) and Bob Ward jury got it right. Not the first time, not the last.

Ya know MommyDog, you are on to something! A lightbulb went off for me when I read your post. People are always quick to say we have the greatest legal system, they trust the legal system, etc. However, maybe the problem isn't the legal system per se, but the jurors. Maybe the average person simply isn't equipped to process the facts, evidence and DNA that is part of the modern trial.

The jury selection process is so elaborate now that it truly isn't even close to what it was meant to be: "a jury of peers". What with jury experts and such, really? I wonder if we truly picked just a random set of 12, with NO input from either side (defense or prosecution) what outcome we would get? I think the process of picking the jury is a huge part of the problem, and maybe the intelligence level of the average juror mixed with what they are expected to process.

It needs to go back to a more basic level. Crimes really shouldn't be so hard to figure out, when most times they are really quite clear and obvious.

 

[MarthaM]

I've got to say, there is a difference here now. We've gone round and round and round in the same circles, with the same explanations so many times it makes my head hurt. And STILL, some people just don't get it and never will. I don't know about anyone else, but yes, that makes me frustrated beyond belief and not as open and charitable as I used to be. I'm not obnoxious and rude, but honestly, I am just tired of having to explain why I feel Casey did this horrible crime over and over again. I keep referencing the same solid science, which not only keeps getting ignored by some, but now some have come forward with their own fantasy science to explain things. It's just unreal how badly some people just don't want to believe that Casey is guilty. Unbelievable, even.

What is said about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Yep, I think I've gone insane...I'm just glad I have like minded people here to suffer with, LOL. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean she's innocent. It just means the system failed. Casey is guilty of murdering of her baby, and I will believe that until the day I die.

Maybe it would help to make a distinction between whether we 'get it' and whether we agree. I can't speak for others who don't think the prosecutors proved their case, but I completely understand what you and others say about the evidence. I get it. But I don't share that same view. And looking at evidence involves analysis and thought and consideration, so it's not at all unusual that everyone's not going to see the same thing. Not seeing the same thing doesn't mean anybody doesn't 'get it'.

There is one thing I don't 'get', and that's why it's so important that others not have an opposing view. I don't need or want anybody else to change their view to mine. Why would I?

I don't know who you're referring to here who doesn't want to believe Casey is guilty; I haven't seen anyone say that or imply that. That makes it sound like people are here defending Casey (the person) or sticking up for her in some way, and I've seen none of that, either. I have no feelings one way or the other about Casey; she was just the defendant in this case... a case which the prosecution failed to prove.

 

[pcrum12]

Maybe it would help to make a distinction between whether we 'get it' and whether we agree. I can't speak for others who don't think the prosecutors proved their case, but I completely understand what you and others say about the evidence. I get it. But I don't share that same view. And looking at evidence involves analysis and thought and consideration, so it's not at all unusual that everyone's not going to see the same thing. Not seeing the same thing doesn't mean anybody doesn't 'get it'.

There is one thing I don't 'get', and that's why it's so important that others not have an opposing view. I don't need or want anybody else to change their view to mine. Why would I?

I don't know who you're referring to here who doesn't want to believe Casey is guilty; I haven't seen anyone say that or imply that. That makes it sound like people are here defending Casey (the person) or sticking up for her in some way, and I've seen none of that, either. I have no feelings one way or the other about Casey; she was just the defendant in this case... a case which the prosecution failed to prove.

well said

 

[Aedrys]

Maybe it would help to make a distinction between whether we 'get it' and whether we agree. I can't speak for others who don't think the prosecutors proved their case, but I completely understand what you and others say about the evidence. I get it. But I don't share that same view. And looking at evidence involves analysis and thought and consideration, so it's not at all unusual that everyone's not going to see the same thing. Not seeing the same thing doesn't mean anybody doesn't 'get it'.

There is one thing I don't 'get', and that's why it's so important that others not have an opposing view. I don't need or want anybody else to change their view to mine. Why would I?

I don't know who you're referring to here who doesn't want to believe Casey is guilty; I haven't seen anyone say that or imply that. That makes it sound like people are here defending Casey (the person) or sticking up for her in some way, and I've seen none of that, either. I have no feelings one way or the other about Casey; she was just the defendant in this case... a case which the prosecution failed to prove.

I'm referring to the people who keep bringing up the same arguments, over and over. The duct tape, for one. There are those who STILL want to argue it wasn't over her face, that it floated there, that Casey didn't put it there. The science says otherwise, has for a LONG time. I'm tired of having to refer back to it time and again.

I have no problem with people who have other opinions than my own. There are some I respect because they are respectful right back. But the ones who keep bringing up the same arguments that have been asked and answered I don't know how many times by the same solid science? Obviously those people can't wrap their minds around Casey having done this horrible deed. Otherwise those same arguments wouldn't keep coming up. Over. And Over. and OVER!

Maybe that's not you in particular. But I see it come up time and again, and I want to just bang my head against a wall. That's what I'm talking about, the resurfacing of arguments that good, solid science has already answered. I know that some people will always view this as accident. There's going to be disagreement forever there. I'm fine with that. I'm just tired of getting my intelligence insulted by those who twist, warp, or ignore the science in saying that this was an accident. That just doesn't work because of the science. And no one has offered solid scientific proof to back up their claims on that either.

We can agree to disagree, but science doesn't lie. Logic and reason doesn't lie. It is simply illogical and against scientific and expert opinion that Casey didn't do this horrible crime, all IMO.

 

[com n sense]

Bottom line is Casey herself has NEVER come out & said what really happened.
That alone speaks volumes to me. Do physco paths feel shame?

 

[beach]

Maybe it would help to make a distinction between whether we 'get it' and whether we agree. I can't speak for others who don't think the prosecutors proved their case, but I completely understand what you and others say about the evidence. I get it. But I don't share that same view. And looking at evidence involves analysis and thought and consideration, so it's not at all unusual that everyone's not going to see the same thing. Not seeing the same thing doesn't mean anybody doesn't 'get it'.

There is one thing I don't 'get', and that's why it's so important that others not have an opposing view. I don't need or want anybody else to change their view to mine. Why would I?

I don't know who you're referring to here who doesn't want to believe Casey is guilty; I haven't seen anyone say that or imply that. That makes it sound like people are here defending Casey (the person) or sticking up for her in some way, and I've seen none of that, either. I have no feelings one way or the other about Casey; she was just the defendant in this case... a case which the prosecution failed to prove.

RBBM

I agree with everything but the last 8 words of your post.


I may not agree with you re: the last words I bolded, but I certainly respect your right to view it differently.

fwiw, I really, really appreciate the respectful tone of your post and I admire your willingness to hang out with us in a forum where it is tough to be swimming against a very strong tide.


That said, I understand just as well the frustration of those who are damn sure the jury got it wrong, wrong, wrong.... Likewise, I don't see how anyone could have any reasonable doubt - it seems unbelievable to me, too. Especially on the Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child charge. I'll never understand how she wasn't at the very least convicted on that charge.

You get it. I get it. We just came to different conclusions on whether it was the prosecution or the jury who really screwed up.