The evidence failed Caylee, not the Jury.

[justanother]

What proof do you require, a video showing the crime being committed?

No but a photo of the tape on the skull as it was supposedly found would have worked more effectively than a photoshopped movie. That movie just let me know there wasn't enough evidence of the tape being on the mouth/nose. It was a mistake IMO to use that movie.

 

[pinkflamingo]

No but a photo of the tape on the skull as it was supposedly found would have worked more effectively than a photoshopped movie. That movie just let me know there wasn't enough evidence of the tape being on the mouth/nose. It was a mistake IMO to use that movie.

There WAS a photo of the skull shown with duct tape. It was not shown to the public.

 

[JDB]

Question if the Jury would have came back in the same amount of time and covicted her would everyone be screaming . The answer is NO. Do I think she got away with mirder heck yes. But like the DA office said in an interview after the verdict came in yesterday came in. One thing he will never do is talk bad about a Jury WHY because these people gave up their lime to serve . And like I said yesterday the DA office had chances to get these 12 off the jury before the case started. It is time to move on people

 

[nursebeeme]

I have to say I'm not a fan of some of the posts that are just down right bashing the jury. It was so frustrating yesterday to not be able to get on WS and the few times I managed to load a page it was full of crazy stuff.......some even wishing harm to the jury. WS is above that. I'm crushed that the verdict was not guilty, but I'm not even going to try and figure out why at this point. I think one day we will know more but right now we don't.

amen teh:rocker:

we are much better than this...

and you know... it is what it is at this point... we cannot change what happened yesterday...

 

[txanmom]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Common sense has gone out of the darn window in this world. Our whole country has become so litigious in nature that this is the end result. If I walk into my house and smell fresh bread baking, I do not need to call up my local chemist to come with a syringe and extract the air in my kitchen into a plastic bag, run it to their lab and give me a printout of the chemical compounds in the air that match fresh baking bread for me to KNOW it is bread.

Good grief!! This is the byproduct of greedy people that sue when hot coffee they know is hot burns their skin. Or an acne drug you took 20 years ago gives you chronic heartburn today.

No!! These 12 people made fools of us all yesterday. It is the product of socially irresponsible, me me me society of sheep that need video tapes of people committing crimes showing each and every step they made during the crime. What criminal does that!! How in the world can we ever hope to find justice when we say well it was a skeleton in water for 6 months, but it didn't have fingerprints on it or a signature from ICA on it stating "I did it". So, she must not have done it. How many skeletons actually have proof on their bones of what happened to them? That is not justice. That is a bunch of people who were irritated with the state for taking time away from their computers, cellphones, and facebook. I mean that is what is really important right?

Nope, they did not listen to instructions. They were clearly told the OS were not to be considered as evidence. The state did not need to prove a motive. And a well-respected ME who has presided over hundreds of cases and knows more than they could ever hope to know on the subject is completely ignored in favor of gossipy inuendo by a chick who may or may not have slept with some dude. That is not following the law, that is flipping the law "the bird" and keeping your mind on your wallet.

 

[Etilema]

BBM. None of which has anything to do with the case that was tried, whether the jury knew about it or not. You can't convict someone of murder 1 because they stole and wrote bad checks. Apples to oranges. All it would have done is reinforce what a snake she is, but wouldn't have done a lick to prove how, when or who killed Caylee. In real life, common sense matters. You need more to convict in a court of law.

Legally, yes. But psychologically it demonstrates a person who is willing to use and harm others for her own purposes, even people who are close to her and love her and whom she presumably loves.

If I just see a nice young lady, a good mother by all accounts, why would I suspect her of suddenly deciding to kill her own baby just so she can go have fun? But if I see that this person has a pattern of treating others as means to an end, I might be more willing to consider the possibility that she did that in this case.

Still, I wonder if the prosecution might have been more successful if they had emphasized the emotional motive more--that, as LDB said, she was in a very antagonistic relationship with an extremely controlling mother. If they had brought witnesses to that perhaps the jury would have seen more of a motive?

 

[evelyn24]

The state may have overcharged the case, but the elements for those charges are there. The jury was given the option to find her guilty of a multitude of lesser charges. There was nothing stopping them from doing that.

Exactly. What the heck with this "they over charged" stuff? I see argument a lot. The jury had the option for manslaughter and didn't even find her guilty of that. How much of a lesser charge can you get? even people who accidentally kill someone through careless behavior can get convicted of manslaughter.
So what it was an accident or not? This jury made no sense. imo

 

[Kavya01]

Time to move on.
Right. Sitting on my hands.
Time to move away from this thread in any event.

 

[D96s]

I am personally tired of this argument, stated as fact. It is not a fact that there wasn't enough evidence. Hundreds, thousands of people watched the same evidence and felt there was enough to convict her. So no, it isn't a fact that the evidence failed. Common sense failed. Caylee's justice was in the hands of these 12 people and they did not deliver. Absolutely people are going to be upset with them, and for good reason. I understand that some people believe the evidence isn't there. But conversely, some people believe it is, and that's where the frustration lies.

I agree - and in fact will go one step further to say I think they DID NOT take their job seriously. Couple of reasons ... one I remember hearing that one of the jurers would put her notebook down, shrug her shoulders and look away in a disinterested manner whenever Jeff Ashton gave testimony. Something is hinky about that. Second, they clearly had their minds made up before they even went into deliberation (couple of jurers where dressed to go home, not deliberate). Third, they were out long enough to fill out the paper work - clearly no discussion was done, no evidence was looked at, etc. HINKY

 

[Baznme]

I think you all give ICA far too much credit for being able to outsmart the entire legal system.

I can understand the decision to a point. More than one person dropped the ball early on in the case to cause potential evidence to have been destroyed. George and Cindy dropped the ball once they got their hands on the car. They should have called 911. The sherrif's dept. didn't respond to the original call from Kronk responsibly. Had he looked closer, he may have found her sooner and enough evidence may have been still enough intact, they could have proven the cause of death. We'll never know but what I can't even comprehend is the "point" of this thread. There's no question the evidence was there and they certainly proved their case if you use the "reasonable" doubt theory. This jury did not ask for any transcripts of witness testimonies, pictures, or to review the physical evidence. Nothing while behind closed doors. That tells me they thought they already had what they needed in their heads. If you will, equate it to taking a college exam without at least studying your notes the night before. I don't feel confident this jury did the best job they could have but, it is what it is. Accidents are not made to look like murder. The coverup was not to cover an accident, it was to cover "why" she died. Period.

 

[mydailyopinions]

BBM. None of which has anything to do with the case that was tried, whether the jury knew about it or not. You can't convict someone of murder 1 because they stole and wrote bad checks. Apples to oranges. All it would have done is reinforce what a snake she is, but wouldn't have done a lick to prove how, when or who killed Caylee. In real life, common sense matters. You need more to convict in a court of law.

It's clear that this jury drank the Casey Anthony kool aide the moment Baez stepped to the plate.

In the real world, Mothers would call 911 when an accident occurs, Mother's would not allow their children to sit out and rot because they care more of themselves than their children.

If Casey Anthony used $1 of the money she stole to put gas in that car that took her to the woods where she threw that child out in the swamp, it most certainly does have everything to do with it!

 

[burbqueen]

Yea, did you listen to anything the alt juror said? He was pretty much a fool and was saying things like "They didn't prove motive" when the judge instructs them NOT to consider that and not to weigh that and the state doesn't have to prove motive. YOU think there wasn't enough evidence but most people think there was.

Exactly, I am basing my opinion so far on what the Jury thinks. People have been saying that the PT came down too harsh on the charges, but that is not the point the Alternate was saying. He was saying and I feel it was a consensus with the jury as a whole, that GA had something to do with it and because they didnt know how caylee died they couldnt find her guilty. One alternate I was told said that she thought Casey was a good mother, huh?! He said other things that confused me too. They didnt believe the body was even in the trunk?? So yeah you can criticize the PT all day long about the charges, but I want to know what the Jury thought before I'm gonna say the case was lost cause of this or that. The jury made the decision and so far it seems they felt for some reason Caylee drowned even though there isnt a lick of evidence pointing there.

Then the Jury didnt ask to review anything? In this kinda of high profile murder case? That is not the norm.

 

[Etilema]

Question if the Jury would have came back in the same amount of time and covicted her would everyone be screaming . The answer is NO. Do I think she got away with mirder heck yes. But like the DA office said in an interview after the verdict came in yesterday came in. One thing he will never do is talk bad about a Jury WHY because these people gave up their lime to serve . And like I said yesterday the DA office had chances to get these 12 off the jury before the case started. It is time to move on people

BBM

OK, excellent point. I would NOT be screaming if they brought back the guilty verdict in the same amount of time. In fact, that is exactly what I expected.

I hope the jury can get some nice limeade now.

 

[Katana]

All they had to do was put 2 and 2 together. They just didn't know where George fit in the equation so best to let her free.

 

[miimaa]

This is a mindset that confuses me. Just because the state decided to prosecute her does not mean she is guilty of anything, yet people seem to think because she was brought to trial the jury should have found her guilty of something. That makes no sense to me. If there's no evidence of what they are charging you with, you are found NOT GUILTY, like she was.

Whoa! What about the evidence? Is it not factual evidence that the child died - had duct tape over her face, was placed into garbage bags and hidden in a swamp? Plus other evidence -

staying away from home 31 days
telling friends Caylee was with nanny or grandparents
telling Cindy Caylee was with nanny
telling LE nanny took Caylee
decomp in car

... and then when Jose gets up and said Caylee drown I wondered WHY KC let people search for her, why she made statements about looking for her once she was out on bail, why she claimed she wanted to find Caylee, why she claimed she spoke to Caylee on the phone 'just that day', etc etc etc.

 

[ehough22]

I object to the notion that those of us who saw enough evidence to convict must have been influenced by the media. That is an untrue, unfounded assumption. I know what I saw and heard in the TRIAL. And yes, I see enough. Apparently this is a matter of opinion, but that means it goes both ways. It means those who didn't see enough evidence think the State failed, but conversely those of us who see the evidence feel the jury failed. We are entitled to that. A baby died at the hands of her mother, so no, it isn't time to move on and be grown ups. It is time to mourn that baby and her severe lack of justice.

I'm not saying we all have to agree. I'm saying those of us who are upset are entitled to be. We saw what we saw and it's baffling that the jury didn't. I am personally disheartened by the things the alternate is saying- it shows yes, a lack of common sense as well as a complete disregard for the facts. And please note, I am not saying those who don't see enough evidence are disregarding the facts- I am specifically talking about that juror's comments and how they are not at all logical. It is not simply "there wasn't enough"- he discounted proven facts and testimonies. If I extrapolate his theories to the rest of the jury, it is frightening and frustrating.

 

[tehcloser]

I think you are just outnumbered in your opinion. Noone is making threats to the jurors.

Being out numbered in my opinion has NEVER bothered me.... :floorlaugh: And if you have not seen the posts, that's fine. There have been some.

 

[grandmaj]

Everyone go back and read the rules and TOS. Because the one thing you are not going to get away with here is snark, making comments about other posters, telling posters that their information is NG, or that their feelings and opinions are wrong. And I don't care which opinion you have, word your opinion posts with no finger pointing and no discussion of other posters or this forum.

What you can have is an opinion which differs. What you cannot do is point fingers, tell other posters they are not bright or allude to such. What you can do is state your opinion without any of these comments. And if you see name calling you alert you do not have the right to chastise other posters!

So stop now. Because this is the 10th time I have made this post and I'm done warning.

 

[lowens1975]

This is a mindset that confuses me. Just because the state decided to prosecute her does not mean she is guilty of anything, yet people seem to think because she was brought to trial the jury should have found her guilty of something. That makes no sense to me. If there's no evidence of what they are charging you with, you are found NOT GUILTY, like she was.

True, but then are some very compelling reasons as to why she did do it. The State thought so, as do I. I don't see how that is confusing.

 

[JBean]

The constant demonizing of the jury is outrageous; the state overcharged this case and subsequently failed its burden of proof.

IMO, this is it in a nutshell.