The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[Baznme]

One must "pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth" because she gave so many conflicting stories. Clearly, the evidence supported none of them. Or did I miss her explanation of the application of the duct tape?

No, you missed her explanation of anything! .........LOL..........it never ends.

 

[cuppy199]

ARe you kidding me? It is so evident that most posters on this forum bought into the mdeia hype that Convicted before trial ever started. JMO

This forum has the most intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure to meet that care deeply about each and every case.Members here spend hour on hour doing our own searching investigating to help not only this case but many others. To even apply that most members here only listen to the media hype is just plain nonsense and totally untrue.The evidence is what formed my opinion. I dont need the media or anyone else I have my own eyes and I can use my brain.

 

[RR0004]

You are assuming she did. I don't assume that. There was no evidence presented that absolutely beyond a reasonable doubt proved Casey did either.

I'm assuming it would explain or rather be part and parcel of what you stated in your post. Mothers who fail to bond may not show remorse when their child dies. Mothers who fail to bond might find it easy to go about their business as if their child never existed. Casey may not have attached to her daughter which could explain a lot of her behavior.
Sorry...I feel like I've had a light bulb moment. Thanks.

 

[RR0004]

We don't know she was killed, we don't know who did what.

I have a hard time believing that this duct tape was placed over her face yet it survived everything it did, the hurricane, the water, the bones being gnawed on by animals, the bones being scattered around, the duct tape supposedly not being attached to anything but the hair, ie no facial tissue (it was decomposed), Roy Kronk supposedly poking the skull with a stick and lifting it into the air or whatever physical poking around he did and yet we are to believe the skull, the tape, the hair all stayed perfectly in place enough to deduct it was the cause of death. That's too many leaps for me to conclusively make on that evidence alone.

I can theorize a reason or two why an accident is made to look like a crime. I can make enough possible leaps to make things that give me pause and reasonable doubt to not believe absolutely it was Casey.

I simply don't know. None of us do. I just don't jump to the automatic guilty conclusion others do based on what I saw in the trail.

Then you might find it helpful to go back through all of the doc dumps. It's been a helluva ride these past 3 years.

 

[RR0004]

Of course I have read and researched the autopsy. No where in that autopsy can I find that it states that the tape was on both side. If I have missed this please do point me to what I have missed.

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/anthony, caylee_report.pdf

Still attached to the hair...doesn't say partially attached. If anyone wants to believe it wasn't fully attached that is their prerogative...they can believe what they want to believe. Personally I don't think it furthers discussion...but we all have our way of looking at things. Obviously, the jurors did.

 

[RR0004]

Drowning is one theory of cause of death given the medical examiner could not find one. There are many possible causes of death, both deliberate and accidental. We simply don't know and most likely never will. I try not to make absolutely judgements of what all people do or don't do because where people are concerned, nothing much is absolute and many things beyond what you think are possible.

To me...there is no reasonable explanation why anyone would toss their child in a dump. And no, there was nothing that connected RK...and there was nothing that connected GA...IMO. Casey was the one who didn't want her daughter found.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I see you didn't answer the question. That's cool. Cheers.

LOL, I sure didn't. Here's your original question:

So, are you suggesting here that if the jury had doubts about the validity of the evidence (which it seems they very much did have) then they should have just gone ahead with a guilty verdict anyway despite those doubts? That seems to go against what a jury is expected to do, IMO.

That question is a sucker punch, and I tried for a few moments then gave up trying to answer it politely. If it seemed relevant to ask me this question, then you misunderstand my post.

By the time the jury decided they doubted the validity of the evidence, the game was over. How ridiculous to vote guilty anyway. So my answer is no, of course not, how silly would that be?

That they were unable to tolerate their doubts and thoroughly examine the evidence in it's entirety is where they screwed up, not in voting "guilty" when they weren't convinced :crazy: .

 

[PeteyGirl]

"With all due respect, that is what the pro-verdict folks on this board appear to have wrong with their conclusions as well. This isn't a matter of inferior intellect, just inferior reasoning, and that is definitely my opinion."

With all due respect, is this saying that because I am pro-verdict, that my reasoning is inferior?

Yes.

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, therefore, any anti-verdict reasoning is superior to mine?

I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, therefore of lower degree or rank, than anti-verdict reasoning which would be superior and higher up?

Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, therefore of poor quality or mediocre as opposed to anti-verdict reasoning being high quality and above average?

Sound reasoning is expected.

Does it mean that since I am pro-verdict my reasoning is inferior, thus making my reasoning of less importance, value or merit, as opposed to anti-verdict reasoning being superior and of greater importance, value or merit?
If this is definately your opinion, I will respect your opinion, and rather than letting myself feel terribly insulted, I will just strongly disagree with your opinion, and leave it at that.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

 

[annalia]

Everything in the docs were facts, Casey's lies were facts, Casey not bothering to report her child missing was a fact, Casey sending police on wild goose chases were facts, everything put out about Casey were facts. The "totality" of the evidence, even circumstantial, pointed to no one but Casey.

The only "hype" were all of the fantasies put out by the DT and pushed by others about sexual abuse and GA being complicit. "Feelings" that GA looked like a pedo, "feelings" that GA looked like he was flirting with Casey, "feelings" that GA committed sexual abuse because he "looked" a certain way, "feelings" that poor CA was suffering from all sorts of different ailments excusing all of her behavior and rendering her not responsible for anything.

That is what was all hype with attempts to try to turn it into fact. NO evidence whatsoever for either sexual abuse or GA's involvement in what happened to Caylee.

For people who have experienced real sexual abuse, myself included, it's outrageous that a liar like CA would use it as a get out of jail free card.

The jurors took the easy way out, they wanted out of there, they couldn't get past the OS, they disregarded what they didn't understand. It's much easier to believe sordid fantasies about perverted old men and sexual abuse than believing a mother would do that to her child, especially watching poor Casey sitting way down low in her chair, being fondled by her DT, stroked, petted, crying on cue.

JMHO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Yes.



I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:



Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.



Sound reasoning is expected.



It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

:clap: Excellent! Solipsism? I had to look it up. It was perfect! :tyou:

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Yes.



I have no idea. I ain't stepping in that :innocent:



Inferior reasoning produces inferior product.



Sound reasoning is expected.



It is OBVIOUS that respect and acceptance of fact is of greater importance, value and merit than not.

This is how I see our discussion. I am holding an apple, and saying it's an apple. You are insisting it may not be an apple, that it is only my opinion that it is an apple, and because a jury of 12 decided there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE it is an apple, they refuse to acknowledge that it is.

The apple in question is not an opinion, it is a fact.

It is pure solipsism to argue the veracity of facts. It is, well, inferior. What else can I say?

We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[TexasLori]

But the fact that it could be something other than an apple doesn't meant it is reasonable to conclude that it was.

For those that say more evidence was needed to conclude BARD, I say perhaps you do not understand the meaning of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean 100% convinced.

The only thing that would change the minds of the pro verdict people would be a video of Casey committing the crime.

 

[Drama Queen]

We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I know a woman who has "crab" apples. She is not happy. Her apples may multiply and become a huge scourge on our earth. Most guys are not at all happy with her either. They are concerned that the "crab" in the apples may cause them to lose many things such as a Job,,,,wife,,,,children...etc. But...they understand that the effect of growing "crab" apples may mean a significant consequence to living on our earth. Therefore they are using a pesticide and and are no longer fertilizing the planet with bad chit!
Doesn't matter the apple...if it is bad...you dang right it is bad!
And place one in the adisphere....it explodes to hades and back. FCA is a crab apple on our society and must not be allowed to infest the Granny Apple (ewww,) Macintosh (ireland would not be happy!) and the yummy Delicious (as in little child who should not be murdered!)
MOO
:great:

 

[MissJames]

FWIW,I don't think all 12 jurors believed there was reasonable doubt,but I do believe they were coerced to change there votes with a faulty argument by the foreman,with the help of JF. JMO
I'm still hoping we hear the true story of what happened in that jury room.#2 came close,so perhaps he will come back and report exactly what was said to turn 6 guilty votes into NG . It sure wasn't by following the jury instructions and it wasn't by looking over the evidence or revisiting testimony.

 

[logicalgirl]

Well, I'm thinking CA and GA can't possibly be supporting the NG verdict or else their big attempts with their Caylees foundation isn't going to fly at all.

And accidental death and a pedophile in the family does not support the principle's of their foundation at all.

Going to be very interesting next week when their canned hype hits the airwaves to see how they are going to 'splain themselves.

"Ah yes.....our CMA is innocent, and this was just an accident so we support her to the fullest, but we never want another family to go through what we did with a missing child even though Caylee was never missing, she drowned, but we thought she was missing and oh wait a minute George found her and apparently abused CMA since she was eight but never mind that ....our foundation supports"......:crazy:

 

[imagirlgeek]

We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

I totally see what you are saying, and it was an excellent way to break it down. BUT....(you knew a 'but' was coming, right)

If you couple this with Dr. V's expert testimony about the analysis of the carpet samples that determined it was a 'food apple', and all the people who stated that they smelled a decomposing 'food apple' and not an Apple Ipod, I have to believe that it was a decomposing 'food apple'.

My point is that I can easily create doubt if I separate all the evidence in this case into it's own stand-alone item. I admit that. But when I put the evidence together, I just can't. MOO

thedeviledadvocate - I am very much enjoying your posts, despite us being on opposite sides of the fence. :seeya:

 

[TexasLori]

I totally see what you are saying, and it was an excellent way to break it down. BUT....(you knew a 'but' was coming, right)

If you couple this with Dr. V's expert testimony about the analysis of the carpet samples that determined it was a 'food apple', and all the people who stated that they smelled a decomposing 'food apple' and not an Apple Ipod, I have to believe that it was a decomposing 'food apple'.

My point is that I can easily create doubt if I separate all the evidence in this case into it's own stand-alone item. I admit that. But when I put the evidence together, I just can't. MOO

thedeviledadvocate - I am very much enjoying your posts, despite us being on opposite sides of the fence. :seeya:

I think this may be the problem. I think people are looking at one piece of evidence at a time. Which is fine, but then you have to back up and look at the whole picture. I could probably find reasonable doubt with any one piece, but that is not how the justice system works. You have to look at the whole, and unfortunately when you start listing RD next to each piece and you look at it all, it adds up to a great big mess of "what ifs" that don't even come close to resembling reasonable doubt.

 

[NavySubMom]

Do you not realize that a lot of the media come here to find out what is truth, theory and/or fantasy? There's a lot of information right here in these archives that some of the media knows nothing about and there are archived posts of some of the key characters in the background of this case.

There are awesome sleuthers here that know how to find reliable sources to back up what is found and the information is scrutinized by all. You can't just post a link to anything you find on the net and expect it to be an acceptable resource. I don't need to tell you that if you've been around here long enough, so your statement that "most posters on this forum bought into the media hype that convicted before trial" ever started is completely unfair and false. It's actually an insult.

I agree with you totally. I lurked here since pretty much "Day 31", having lurked here for other things prior, and only joined last year. however, the info on this site and reading the threads was public, so I read here, and there is so much actual evidence and detail and scrutiny from people on both sides of the aisle here, it is overwhelming. With the FLA sunshine laws, we were able to see all of the evidentiary doc dumps, and most of the actual evidence over the years, along with much more. To go back in the archives of this case is an incredible thing to do, one thing I remember that was not brought into the trial of course is the diagramming of the stain on the trunk of the car to show the actual "layout" of how this could be of a young child. So much time went into scrutinizing the cell phone pings, the phone records, all of the pre-trial hearings, etc., photos, I cannot even begin to detail the amount of actual EVIDENCE that is on this site. I am not saying all of the info on this site was brought into the trial or that all the info on this site is the God's Truth, but to indicate the majority people on this website bought into the "media hype" is so wrong, I agree it is a complete insult. IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[kelian36]

This forum has the most intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure to meet that care deeply about each and every case.Members here spend hour on hour doing our own searching investigating to help not only this case but many others. To even apply that most members here only listen to the media hype is just plain nonsense and totally untrue.The evidence is what formed my opinion. I dont need the media or anyone else I have my own eyes and I can use my brain.

Amen Cuppy. :toastred:

 

[kelian36]

LOL, I sure didn't. Here's your original question:



That question is a sucker punch, and I tried for a few moments then gave up trying to answer it politely. If it seemed relevant to ask me this question, then you misunderstand my post.

By the time the jury decided they doubted the validity of the evidence, the game was over. How ridiculous to vote guilty anyway. So my answer is no, of course not, how silly would that be?

That they were unable to tolerate their doubts and thoroughly examine the evidence in it's entirety is where they screwed up, not in voting "guilty" when they weren't convinced :crazy: .

Truer words were never spoken.