Sidebar Discussion

[IfIMay]

I think saying the "amount" of circumstantal evidence is irrelevent is like saying the "amount" of coincedences are irrelevent. They are part and parcel. As for the evidence. I actually agree with you on two points; the duct tape and chloroform evidence left reasonable doubt - I can see that. But not reporting her missing for 31 days - her daughter, the smell in the trunk, her trunk, the forensic evidence...... I can see no conviction on murder one, but to say there was no negligence on her part, that she wasn't involved in any type of child abuse. That dog won't hunt......:twocents:

I believe that aggravated child abuse leading to felony murder was proven, so I disagree with you on the first part. But I do agree that the absolute minimum was negligence. Still can't believe I witnessed this verdict. I will never "get over" it and accept it was the right one. never.

 

[Murphismo]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149328&page=31 Here's a link to our discussion over on the MK thread, Monzoo gives two very good cites to get a feel for both G and NG sides. I'll warn you, the MK G link is really difficult and time consuming to wade through but really is fantastic.

 

[PeteyGirl]

<<snip>>

Specifically with the Anthony trial, the circumstantial evidence just wasn't that impressive. Had it been more specifically tied to Casey, then I think the prosecution would have proven their case and won. It was just a little too vague for the jury, I think. The duct tape, chloroform searches, etc. just weren't all that great as far as circumstantial evidence goes.

Now, another jury might have thought it was enough to convict. But this jury didn't, and that's how the jury system works.

No, it was impressive and convincing to a clear majority. A significant (in comparison) minority of observers are reluctant to connect the dots.

If a majority of people are convinced, then the evidence was quite impressive.

In general, when a majority of people reach a consensus, it is called Reality. There are historical incidents where very bad things were created by such a consensus (the Holocaust) based upon the wrong ideas. Thankfully, THOSE incidents are in the minority, in the great scheme of things, else we would not be crowding each other off the globe.

If a clear majority of people, including scientists practicing the scientific method, reach the conclusion that the Earth is round, then it probably is. There is something WRONG with the folks who continue to insist the world is flat. Something wrong with their thinking processes, that is.

 

[Murphismo]

I believe that aggravated child abuse leading to felony murder was proven, so I disagree with you on the first part. But I do agree that the absolute minimum was negligence. Still can't believe I witnessed this verdict. I will never "get over" it and accept it was the right one. never.

I'm with you.... My main point was that the absolute minimum was proven IMO, but I can see where one could come up with reasonable doubt about the rest. Me? Probably not Murder 1. Had I been on that jury, she'd have died behind bars.

 

[2goldfish]

You know, I don't know..... I'm really on the fence. My gut tells me no.... If I had to bet I'd say she was innoscent, but the Italian justice system is very different from ours and she's their Casey Anthony in a lot of ways..... If the evidence speaks and the jurors listen, I see an aquittal. Sadly, I'm not convinced it is going to go that way.

I'm waiting with bated breath on that one. I was shocked as all get out that she and sollicito (sp?) were convicted to begin with. mind you I am still on the fence as to their involvement, I think they will get off this time but alas I have been wrong over and over again this year

 

[cityslick]

No, it was impressive and convincing to a clear majority. A significant (in comparison) minority of observers are reluctant to connect the dots.

If a majority of people are convinced, then the evidence was quite impressive.

In general, when a majority of people reach a consensus, it is called Reality. There are historical incidents where very bad things were created by such a consensus (the Holocaust) based upon the wrong ideas. Thankfully, THOSE incidents are in the minority, in the great scheme of things, else we would not be crowding each other off the globe.

If a clear majority of people, including scientists practicing the scientific method, reach the conclusion that the Earth is round, then it probably is. There is something WRONG with the folks who continue to insist the world is flat. Something wrong with their thinking processes, that is.

Why do people insist on saying that opinions are wrong? There is no such thing. Just because you don't believe it or you don't subscribe to it, doesn't mean there is a right or wrong to it. You are, in a backhanded way, telling people who agreed with verdict that something is wrong with them because they have an opinion that's different from yours.

I don't agree with everything the jury decided on, but I respect those that do, even if I don't agree with their line of thinking.

 

[nssherlock]

I think that juries don't always look at post-death behavior as proof. They'd rather see pre-death behavior and circumstantial evidence that lead them to murder, not what happened after a person is deceased. And I can understand that. It's much easier to prove murder if you have solid CE in the days and weeks leading up to a death, but less so if most of what you've got comes afterwards. I think that was a real problem for this prosecution team.

Respectfully.....There was a boat load of CE against FCA before her murder of little Caylee, generally in the form of the perps Lying Cheating Stealing and Sociopathy Disorder. The time afterwards got so much play because it was so appalling and so blatant as to be almost beyond belief and made people just simply hate her on top of believing her guilty.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Why do people insist on saying that opinions are wrong? There is no such thing. Just because you don't believe it or you don't subscribe to it, doesn't mean there is a right or wrong to it. You are, in a backhanded way, telling people who agreed with verdict that something is wrong with them because they have an opinion that's different from yours.

I don't agree with everything the jury decided on, but I respect those that do, even if I don't agree with their line of thinking.

Opinions can definitely be wrong. Not wrong to HAVE, but wrong in terms of fact.

 

[2goldfish]

I think that juries don't always look at post-death behavior as proof. They'd rather see pre-death behavior and circumstantial evidence that lead them to murder, not what happened after a person is deceased. And I can understand that. It's much easier to prove murder if you have solid CE in the days and weeks leading up to a death, but less so if most of what you've got comes afterwards. I think that was a real problem for this prosecution team.

now for me, what comes after is at least as important as what came before. consciousness of guilt, effort to cover up, that sort of thing.

you cant always prove what came before. another case I would be interested in your opinion on, is mechele lenehan/kent leppink.

 

[MarthaM]

Respectfully.....There was a boat load of CE against FCA before her murder of little Caylee, generally in the form of the perps Lying Cheating Stealing and Sociopathy Disorder. The time afterwards got so much play because it was so appalling and so blatant as to be almost beyond belief and made people just simply hate her on top of believing her guilty.

I think that what the jury saw was a lot of CE of lying, cheating, and stealing that showed that Casey lies, cheats, and steals... but didn't show that she murders. I've said from the beginning that I think the prosecutors did a fine job of proving that the Anthonys are one messed-up family and that Casey Anthony did not display admirable behavior in the days, weeks, and probably years leading up to Caylee's death (and afterwards). Unfortunately for the prosecutors, though, they just didn't prove that those behaviors meant that Casey killed Caylee.

As far as 'sociopathy'... I just don't go there. The word 'sociopath' is thrown around so freely in our society and is applied to so many people that it ends up being meaningless.

 

[krkrjx]

Interesting diccussion on the FCA jury from the Amanda Knox trial commentator:

...The interview with juror Jennifer Ford on the Casey Anthony outcome was quite fascinating because her decision was based on something we’ve been arguing about for a long time – circumstantial evidence.

There’ve been classic cases at Orphans of Liberty where expert testimony described actual evidence found and tested and what conclusions were drawn from that. When you get up to 12 or 13 experts all saying exactly the same thing and some of those were actually on site, then what do you conclude?

Against that, you have that comment that “circumstantial” is usually all you have in a murder. By definition, the murderer does not oblige by taking snapshots or videorecording the event.” Often he or she does everything in their power to cover it up.

It’s all very well for a Columbo to waltz in and cleverly trap the murderer he’s fixed on but in most cases, it’s the result of painstaking work building exhibits and other evidence which fits together. True, when the police try too hard, you can get frame-ups. But what the pro-Knox machine are making out – that “a stream of lies” has come out of Mignini’s office, while conflating that with his provisional conviction over another case - concluding from that that Knox is innocent, they’re open to challenge.

.......
Coming back to Jennifer Ford, what struck me was how tough it was for her because they did not have absolute final proof. They did have so much evidence of what happened – the car trunk, the remains in the swamp and so on, the forensic evidence, so much so that it was pretty much a foregone conclusion, unless some other person or persons unknown had come into it.

Yet they did not convict, on the grounds that the prosecution had not finally proven, i.e. they didn’t have Casey Anthony at the scene, through an eyewitness, actually doing the murder.

Thank you!!! for this post. This is the epitome of common sense.

Jennifer Ford said the state did not prove how Caylee died...was it chloroform or was it duct tape? The state also did not prove exactly when Caylee died, and Ms. Ford believed they were required to prove that. When she didn't get those answers she gave more credence to an accidental death. She believed the state needed to "connect to dots" and that they didn't do that. (The defense did not connect the dots on their accident theory either but...oh well...)

I think a lot of skewed thinking comes from the current generation of crime shows on TV. CSI is one example. Those shows are interesting, can even be riveting at times. But in real life, crime scene investigation is usually not riveting and is actually a long, somewhat boring process. Much like a lot of the testimony in the Casey trial--boring, scientific stuff. The new generation of TV crime-solving is raising a generation of citizens who expect every case to be cut and dried, all sewn up into a neat little bundle with all the dots connected.

But that will never happen, because life is rarely as it is shown on TV. That any juror expects all the answers to be handed to them on a silver platter is alarming. Alarming, yet understandable. It occurs to me that in court from now on prosecutors are going to have to push home the fact that real life crime-solving and TV crime-solving are two very different animals.

Murderers have been convicted even in cases where there is not a body. I wonder how long that will continue to be possible, though. Before much longer no one will be convicted unless there are exact fiber matches, fingerprints, blood evidence, video or audio tapes, a smoking gun, and last but not least, a body. That is coming folks, thanks to a society that is becoming more and more intrigued by CSI-type programs. Soon all jurors will demand all evidence be recovered and processed according to how they saw the process unfold on the last episode of their favorite TV show.

 

[cityslick]

Opinions can definitely be wrong. Not wrong to HAVE, but wrong in terms of fact.

I disagree, because everyone interprets facts differently. In this instance, you either believe the state proved it's case or you didn't. It's your opinion that they did, based on the facts presented. It's others that they did not, based on the facts presented.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm waiting with bated breath on that one. I was shocked as all get out that she and sollicito (sp?) were convicted to begin with. mind you I am still on the fence as to their involvement, I think they will get off this time but alas I have been wrong over and over again this year

the thing that really startled me was her and her boyfriends behavior while the police were in the house examining the crime scene and looking at the girl's body. That was a bizarre as FCA's behavior. IMO. So while I have read her parents statements - I'm inclined to believe she is guilty.

 

[MarthaM]

now for me, what comes after is at least as important as what came before. consciousness of guilt, effort to cover up, that sort of thing.

you cant always prove what came before. another case I would be interested in your opinion on, is mechele lenehan/kent leppink.

I don't think I've even heard of that case. I had to google it because I didn't even recognize the names, and after reading the summary of the case it still doesn't ring a bell. So I can't comment on that one.

 

[2goldfish]

the thing that really startled me was her and her boyfriends behavior while the police were in the house examining the crime scene and looking at the girl's body. That was a bizarre as FCA's behavior. IMO. So while I have read her parents statements - I'm inclined to believe she is guilty.

I think it is more likely they were involved than not, but I am by no means convinced - I think they should be acquitted. no one seems to have a good guess as to what's likely. maybe we should all head over to that thread

 

[marge_rita]

Respectfully.....There was a boat load of CE against FCA before her murder of little Caylee, generally in the form of the perps Lying Cheating Stealing and Sociopathy Disorder. The time afterwards got so much play because it was so appalling and so blatant as to be almost beyond belief and made people just simply hate her on top of believing her guilty.

Tons of CE that imo that was ignored.
Aren't the majority of murder cases CE?


imo

 

[logicalgirl]

I think saying the "amount" of circumstantal evidence is irrelevent is like saying the "amount" of coincedences are irrelevent. They are part and parcel. As for the evidence. I actually agree with you on two points; the duct tape and chloroform evidence left reasonable doubt - I can see that. But not reporting her missing for 31 days - her daughter, the smell in the trunk, her trunk, the forensic evidence...... I can see no conviction on murder one, but to say there was no negligence on her part, that she wasn't involved in any type of child abuse. That dog won't hunt......:twocents:

That's interesting because for me - in the case of an accidental death, there is no room at all for either duct tape or chloroform. One or both were used in the chlld's death, and as the supreme court decided in a prior case, there is not rational reason to put duct tape on anyone's face except to prevent them from breathing. If there were massive amounts of chloroform in the trunk where the body was placed, and the body had duct tape over it's mouth and nose, what difference does it make which one came first? The death was not accidental because of these two factors alone.

Saying it creates reasonable doubt does not make it so - IMO of course.

 

[nssherlock]

I think that what the jury saw was a lot of CE of lying, cheating, and stealing that showed that Casey lies, cheats, and steals... but didn't show that she murders. I've said from the beginning that I think the prosecutors did a fine job of proving that the Anthonys are one messed-up family and that Casey Anthony did not display admirable behavior in the days, weeks, and probably years leading up to Caylee's death (and afterwards). Unfortunately for the prosecutors, though, they just didn't prove that those behaviors meant that Casey killed Caylee.

As far as 'sociopathy'... I just don't go there. The word 'sociopath' is thrown around so freely in our society and is applied to so many people that it ends up being meaningless.

FCA's lying/cheating/stealing gave a strong indicator of her character and values (an absence of both), - the evidence (science) is what proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As to her being a Sociopath, her mother was the first to identify her as having that disorder. I agree that being a liar does not make one a murderer........but in this case I believe that this particular liar IS a murderer.

 

[marge_rita]

Scott Peterson was convicted of 2 counts of murder due largely to CE.

Anyone remember Wayne Williams, the Atlanta boy killer?

His case was the first case where a single fiber (from carpet) was used as direct evidence to convict a killer. Reference A&E and ID tv and a book written about WW that I can't find. )

imo

 

[Murphismo]

the thing that really startled me was her and her boyfriends behavior while the police were in the house examining the crime scene and looking at the girl's body. That was a bizarre as FCA's behavior. IMO. So while I have read her parents statements - I'm inclined to believe she is guilty.

SO TELL! I am still a mere student of this case and eager to hear as much as possible!!