The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[RR0004]

Thanks logicalgirl - I'd like to think I'm right and FCA has some form of conscious, but maybe you're right. And if you are, it's just a matter of time before this shell of a human being offends again and next time she won't be so lucky. And if I'm right, she'll be tortured throughout the rest of her life and eternity.

If Casey runs out of money...which I hope she never gets...you'll see her true colors. She will be looking for a guy very soon. She'll need some "thing" to fall back on once the money disappears...and it will. I feel sorry for her next victims. I pray she will never have another child.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Respectfully, do no suggest that state did anything underhanded here. They did not. There was no definitive test to to say with 100% accuracy that adipocere was on those towels. No test like that exists. All they can do is test for the components that make up adipocere, and even then those components can come from other sources as well. And even if there was such a test and the state didn't get the results they wanted, the state would not just throw it out and not use it. They could get into serious, mistrial proportions of trouble for denying the defense evidence that it wasn't adipocere. That did not happen. I think part of the problem is that people think are tests out there to prove absolutely EVERYTHING with 100% percent accuracy and that is false. Shoot, if that were possible, a lot more people would be in jail. Instead, tests are interpreted, and it's up to the jury to use their imagination and critical thinking to decide whose interpretation is better, which the jury did not do here.

Getting back to the hypothesis about the state, putting out false statements like this is not cool. Disagree with the verdict but don't accuse the state of doing bad things, even in a what if scenario, unless there is actual proof on such impropriety on their part. There's plenty of proof of all of things the defense did wrong. And if the state made a mistake, they quickly admitted to it and corrected it. I'm not saying the state is always perfect, but in this case, there was no impropriety on their part whatsoever. It's worthless to accuse them of it even in hypothesis.

And the state's burden, which has been repeated time and again, is not remove ALL doubt, just all REASONABLE doubt, which with some people has gone way too far into the category of unreasonable. What happened to using imagination and putting things together? Why must people have everything in row, a complete picture by the end of trial? This does not happen in most trials! And people still get convicted, without bodies, without solid evidence and only circumstantial evidence. It seems some people think no one should get convicted unless there's completely solid proof accompanied by a video of the perp doing the deed. Good Lord. That is not the burden of the state to have at every trial to get someone convicted.

Shoot, if looks like apple, smells like an apple, has the skin and core of an apple, then it's probably an apple. It is unreasonable to assume it's something else because imagination can't be used to put the evidence together and conclude it's an apple. The attitude of there wasn't enough so we'll never know is ludicrious. That's like saying we'll never know what puzzle is supposed to look like without every piece and the box top. A puzzle can still be put together with many missing pieces but the picture can still be figured out with critical thinking and imagination.

A lot of people just don't think critically anymore. If it's not layed out 100% in front of them so they don't have to do any mental work to figure it out, then why bother. There must be doubt because everything's not there to say she did it, so acquit. Ignore all of the evidence of her selfishness like the videos, jails calls, and destroying her own family in court to save her self; her lack of caring that her daughter is dead; her lies on top of lies on top of lies about her child being missing and kidnapped when that child is long dead; her being the only person with ANY motive to want Caylee gone; the dumpsite being down the street from Casey's home; the smell of death in the back of her car that she said she had sole possession of; and items from that house found in the bag in the swamp holding the duct taped face of a child who most certainly didn't die from drowning. I am so disappointed in that all of that somehow wasn't enough, and no proof of ANYTHING the defense said was brought forward, and the defense was completely inept on top of that, but somehow the defense was more believable than all of the circumstantial evidence that said otherwise. And the unreasonable thinking here is just astounding. Somehow being weird equates to it being okay to not call 911 if a child drowns. Weird people should have no responsiblity whatsover to anyone or anything because they are weird and don't understand. Because George acted weird on the stand, he must have done something. Because the state is not cow towing to the jury and the defense is, the defense is more likable and must be right. I could on and on with the complete unreasonableness and lack of critical thinking and imagination that is this verdict. I sincerely hope verdicts like Casey's aren't the future of our justice system, but from what I've seen of these twelve jurors and many on this board, I'm afraid it is.

All IMO.

In court, the defense expert was asked by JB if there was any way to determine if this fatty like substance was adipocere, and that expert said "yes, with further testing it could." I believe that expert knows more about adipocere than I do, so I will take his word for it. JA tried very hard to impeach this witnesses testimony, but he failed in my opinion to impeach him.

As for whether or not the state did anything underhanded, that is your word, not mine. I believe the state wanted to win period. They outlawyered JB every step of the way. As I was told by some posters on this site, if I was looking for the truth in this trial, I was looking in the wrong place. The PT wanted to win, and there are many, many, many things a prosecutor can do that is legal, yet (again using your word) underhanded. The 84 searches is an example. As are the bench notes of CSI GB. Both things they did here are legal. Some may consider both of these things, using your word, underhanded.

I do want to be clear though, I do not think the state did anything illegal. I think they outsmarted the defense numerous times, and JB was too much of a rookie to catch them. Both sides wanted to win. Both sides were doing everything they could legally do to win. Whenever the defense did anything that looked or seemed to be, again your word, underhanded, the media annihilated them. No one in the media asked why the state did not perform the further testing to determine if it was adipocere, they simple reported that it was adipocere. When JJ talked to the defense investigator and taped the conversation, he told the cops what he had done, the tape was sealed, and he was threatened. We will never know what he told the defense about the searches in the wooded area, because he pleaded the 5th on the stand. That all is legal by the state, but in my opinion, that is not a search for the whole truth, and it may be considered by some to be your word, underhanded.

I think verdicts like KC's will happen time and time again, if the prosecution tries to convict with the kind evidence that the state used in this case. Sometimes, they may get a conviction using this same type of evidence, but sometimes they may get what this case got them. In this particular case, I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[RR0004]

In court, the defense expert was asked by JB if there was any way to determine if this fatty like substance was adipocere, and that expert said "yes, with further testing it could." I believe that expert knows more about adipocere than I do, so I will take his word for it. JA tried very hard to impeach this witnesses testimony, but he failed in my opinion to impeach him.

As for whether or not the state did anything underhanded, that is your word, not mine. I believe the state wanted to win period. They outlawyered JB every step of the way. As I was told by some posters on this site, if I was looking for the truth in this trial, I was looking in the wrong place. The PT wanted to win, and there are many, many, many things a prosecutor can do that is legal, yet (again using your word) underhanded. The 84 searches is an example. As are the bench notes of CSI GB. Both things they did here are legal. Some may consider both of these things, using your word, underhanded.

I do want to be clear though, I do not think the state did anything illegal. I think they outsmarted the defense numerous times, and JB was too much of a rookie to catch them. Both sides wanted to win. Both sides were doing everything they could legally do to win. Whenever the defense did anything that looked or seemed to be, again your word, underhanded, the media annihilated them. No one in the media asked why the state did not perform the further testing to determine if it was adipocere, they simple reported that it was adipocere. When JJ talked to the defense investigator and taped the conversation, he told the cops what he had done, the tape was sealed, and he was threatened. We will never know what he told the defense about the searches in the wooded area, because he pleaded the 5th on the stand. That all is legal by the state, but in my opinion, that is not a search for the whole truth, and it may be considered by some to be your word, underhanded.

I think verdicts like KC's will happen time and time again, if the prosecution tries to convict with the kind evidence that the state used in this case. Sometimes, they may get a conviction using this same type of evidence, but sometimes they may get what this case got them. In this particular case, I think the verdict was correct.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

As far as further testing...perhaps they thought "enough" of what they did have. To assume they didn't do further testing is IMO implying that they did do something "underhanded". Again, this is an examination of the evidence independently. Those that view the verdict as correct will discount the other evidence tied to the adipocere. As far as the 84 searches was explained...and to be honest with you, we never heard/saw that in the early evidence so IMO most here based their opinions on the 1 search (and still the majority opinion differs from the jury's)...it was an error that did happen when there was further "testing" (analyzing). To view this as some sort of "ploy" on the State's part...is IMHO viewing the State as being "underhanded".

What I don't get-for those who agree- is how the State can be overconfident with the evidence one minute to not being confident so as to require them to play at all costs to win.

 

[PeteyGirl]

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?

Yes, very simpleminded, but it wasn't my idea to take it all down to an apple :whoosh:

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?

Lord almighty You could have done Baez's job better than he did. That is pure kerflunkelation, at it's finest. I guess what it boils down to, for me, is that I trust my ability to process information enough that I don't need to go through all that to reach what I consider a well reasoned conclusion.

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.

If the jurors saw the evidence presented in such oversimplified terms, then no wonder they failed their duty.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

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.

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.

For me, the possibility that she might not of bonded, might not of had the nurturing protective instincts, might of explained a lot of the very emotionally charged, damning pre-judged stuff out there about her.

These bonds and instincts don't come automatically to *every* mother who gives birth.

For me, it adds another layer to consider and very much explains the question in your second comment.

 

[logicalgirl]

Actually, if you think back - it was a Supreme Court judge in the Huck case appeal who declared there is no reason whatsoever to have duct tape across the nose and mouth of an individual except to prevent them from breathing.

I apologize for making the above statement without the link which can be found at:

http://www.romingerlegal.com/floridacourts/court_opinions2/5D03-1906.op.html
for more information on this case precedent.

" More importantly, the
assertion that Mr. Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly
reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to
prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There
is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is
dead. In addition, the State presented evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes.
The medical examiner testified within a reasonable degree of medical probability that the
cause of death was asphyxia and the manner of death was a homicide. "

This was another duct tape, garbage bags, thrown away like garbage + water case. Guilty verdict + appeal.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Regarding the adipocere and the the other decomposition related forensics . . .

They may have failed, in themselves, to be conclusive. I more or less agree with that.

Take out the adipocere and decay chemicals by themselves. Isolate them from the historical context of the "death smell" identified by Cindy, George, the tow yard guy, Lee, Casey herself, the cadaver dogs, and a handful of other people (including at least one expert witness who noted an odor of decay after the lining had been in police custody for two years) . . .

Whether that greasy stuff was adipocere or not does not render witness testimony meaningless.

It's like saying an apple is not conclusively an apple because the apple genome is incomplete or only mitochondrial. I'm gonna look at the apple, wash it off and eat it while you (the generic you) are still running forensics.

I'm gonna eat it because I am considering the entire BODY of evidence, not just the genome.

 

[cuppy199]

Its just as easy to say that sinse there might of been no bond KA had no problem killing and throwing the child away like trash . The door swings both ways. It can just as easily explain her behavior and why it was so important to make LE think it was a missing child they were looking for.

 

[askfornina]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html

interesting article.

 

[com n sense]

You are right --now tell me how the jurors came to a verdict without that consideration? Blows me away.

During this past month I've had a reoccurring thought>>>>> did the DT vote to allow the least smart folks as jurors? :maddening:

EVERYONE I talk to that followed the case or even just started to follow it when the trial started - all agree that something very fishy went down.
Even the 12 jurors admitted they were crying & sick to their stomachs giving her a NG vertict. Something just does not add up.

 

[MissJames]

Sustained I've read and read and read your comments in this thread and said thanks both for your tenacity and courage to be posting over and over again .

But this is the only time I'm going to disagree with you my friend. When FKC walks past a schoolyard of children, I don't think Caylee will come to mind at all, and when she sees something feasting on carrion, I don't think Caylee will come to mind, for the same reason that when I throw something away that is garbage TO ME, I never think of it again.

I agree and was about to post the same thing. It won't bother her at all :maddening:

 

[com n sense]

For all of the verdict opponents out there, think of the new FCA reality ...

* Every time FCA walks by a playground with little girls running, laughing, & playing, she'll be reminded of what she did to Caylee;

* Every time FCA walks by a school, she'll be hit with the thought that Caylee never got a chance to go to school;

* Every time FCA sees a Pontiac Sunfire, she'll be tortured with the fact she had Caylee's body in a Sunfire trunk;

* Every time FCA sees a roll of duct tape, she'll be haunted by the image of duct tape covering Caylee's mouth and nose;

* Every time FCA takes her trash out to the street, she'll be reminded of how she threw Caylee in with the trash on Suburban Drive;

And finally ...

* Every time FCA drives/walks down the street and see some roadkill with animals feasting, she'll be reminded of how she left her daughter in the swamp for animals to chew on.

FCA would have never experienced these visions & feelings in prison; maybe it's better that's she locked in a prison in her mind, with Caylee's lifeless face staring at her for as long as she lives.

So if you adopt that viewpoint, maybe the jurors did us a favor ...

I can't agree with this. IMO She does not nor did she ever care about Caylee so it won't affect her at all.
Everytime she walks by a park, school, car, she will think "I have no regrets for I am free to live the beautiful life" She may be reminded of being tied down for those 3 years & feel a wave of relief everytime she see's a little girl.
She probably smiles when she she's a roll of duct tape.
She no doubt laughs when she sees a police car.

 

[MissJames]

Thanks logicalgirl - I'd like to think I'm right and FCA has some form of conscious, but maybe you're right. And if you are, it's just a matter of time before this shell of a human being offends again and next time she won't be so lucky. And if I'm right, she'll be tortured throughout the rest of her life and eternity.

You know why I don't think she'll ever be bothered by what she did? The 31 days starting within hours of when Caylee was most likely killed. She did not have a care in the world the night of June 16th when she went to Blockbusters with TonE. No one sensed any concern from her during those days.She was happy and bubbly and busy.When TonE picked her up at Amscot she wasn't sick or throwing up or crying. She just didn't care .Even the smell didn't bother her as much as it would us.
That's why I just do not get the NG verdict. Even if Caylee died by accident,she showed she just did not care.

 

[Sustained]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html

interesting article.

I would have expected no less from a former defense attorney who was an advisor for the defense in the O.J. trial and represented Claus von Bulow, who most people think murdered his wife Sunny. And frankly, I'm surprised that Dershowitz was not at dinner in New York with Geragos and Baez a couple of weeks ago. Birds of a feather ...

 

[askfornina]

I would have expected no less from a former defense attorney who was an advisor for the defense in the O.J. trial and represented Claus von Bulow, who most people think murdered his wife Sunny. And frankly, I'm surprised that Dershowitz was not at dinner in New York with Geragos and Baez a couple of weeks ago. Birds of a feather ...

i am well aware of who wrote the article, still an interesting read to me.

having just read his biography, i would hardly put him in the same league as Baez or Geragos, imo..but alright.

 

[MissJames]

I would have expected no less from a former defense attorney who was an advisor for the defense in the O.J. trial and represented Claus von Bulow, who most people think murdered his wife Sunny. And frankly, I'm surprised that Dershowitz was not at dinner in New York with Geragos and Baez a couple of weeks ago. Birds of a feather ...

Agree. It's not like he would be willing to consider the possibility that the jury screwed up the deliberation process or that there is now a probable murderer free to commit murder again ( and we keep hearing that Casey needs protection! ).
No,anytime a defense wins a case ,even if a criminal walks free,AD will celebrate the WIN. Unfortunately it's the victims and the public who lose.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

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.

Would you let Casey babysit your kids? If so please help me understand why...

 

[askfornina]

i know it wasn't directed toward me, but i really hate the "would you let casey babysit your kids" question. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

to answer the question, no i would not let casey babysit my kids. because i don't know her. i wouldn't let anyone i don't know babysit my kids.

assuming i did know her, and i found her unsuitable as a childcare provider, that does not equate to her murdering her child.

 

[LCoastMom]

Just to take this one step further in regards to the substance like adipocere, it is entirely possible that the state DID do the further testing, and the results of that testing showed this substance was NOT adipocere. Since the state decided not to use this result in their CIC, they were not required to show it in discovery, legally this is playing with fire, as this could be considered to be exculpatory evidence, but just as the FBI said we will just say we don't have the pictures of the duct tape with the measurements, the state may have decided to say we didn't test the substance like adipocere further. I will 100% gaurantee, if they had done the further testing, and this test proved beyond any doubt that this substance was adipocere, the state would have brought this into evidence and it may very well have changed the outcome of the verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Respectfully snipped

Re BBM The jury had over 300 pieces of evidence at their disposal to evaluate when coming to a decision. They chose to ignore all 300+ items. How is it even remotely possible that ONE more little scientific statement/analysis would have turned this verdict around?

IMO something swayed this jury but it was not presented as evidence and nothing was going to change the outcome.

For me, the possibility that she might not of bonded, might not of had the nurturing protective instincts, might of explained a lot of the very emotionally charged, damning pre-judged stuff out there about her.

These bonds and instincts don't come automatically to *every* mother who gives birth.

For me, it adds another layer to consider and very much explains the question in your second comment.

Not everyone who lacks said instincts kills their children or would ever dump their children in a swamp, so why does CFCA get consideration because she didn't bond with Caylee? IMO it is another excuse that lets CFCA off the hook for what she has done.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Regarding the adipocere and the the other decomposition related forensics . . .

They may have failed, in themselves, to be conclusive. I more or less agree with that.

Take out the adipocere and decay chemicals by themselves. Isolate them from the historical context of the "death smell" identified by Cindy, George, the tow yard guy, Lee, Casey herself, the cadaver dogs, and a handful of other people (including at least one expert witness who noted an odor of decay after the lining had been in police custody for two years) . . .

Whether that greasy stuff was adipocere or not does not render witness testimony meaningless.

It's like saying an apple is not conclusively an apple because the apple genome is incomplete or only mitochondrial. I'm gonna look at the apple, wash it off and eat it while you (the generic you) are still running forensics.

I'm gonna eat it because I am considering the entire BODY of evidence, not just the genome.

Between this thread and the two previous threads dealing with agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict, it is quite obvious that those who disagree and those who agree will never come to an agreement with each other.

Just as those who disagree with the verdict feel they are being logical, using common sense, connecting the dots, and using the evidence as the basis for their disagreement, those who agree with the verdict feel they used logic, common sense, connected the dots, and used the evidence as the basis for their agreement.

Dr. Haskell and Dr. Hall once looked at the same report. They were each asked to develop a theory as to what happened based on the same report. The results they arrived at were polar opposites. Both are highly accredited in their field, experts. One dr. was called by the prosecution, the other by the defense. In that case, the verdict ended up guilty. Does this mean that the dr. who was on the side of the defense developed a flawed, unreasonable, illogical, theory that lacked common sense? Had the verdict ended up not guilty, would that have made the other dr's theory flawed, unreasonable, illogical and lacking in common sense?

Our differences are in opinion. When our opinion has not changed after looking at something from seemingly every angle possible, then our opinion probably will never change. This does seem to be the case here. We all believe so strongly that our opinion is correct, that we will not change it. We have strong convictions. I believe that if two of our posters, one pro, one anti verdict had been on the jury, it would have been a hung jury. Does that mean that one's opinion is right and the other's opinion is wrong? I think it just means we have a difference of opinion. Some may think it isn't hot outside until it reaches 70 degrees. Some one else may think it is nice at 70 degrees but it isn't hot till it reaches 90 degrees. Simply a difference of opinion, neither is right nor wrong and both reached their opinion by what feels hot to them.

I do find the posts that explain how they reached their opinions interesting, whether I agree with them or not.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.