The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[Baxter]

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.

BBM

The jury never considered, compare and contrasted or did anything with that evidence. Their ears were closed after the defense shouted their imaginary opening.

 

[LambChop]

The only difference with the experts is that the SA's are the first to get reports from their experts and they report their findings and/or opinions and it usually stops there. The defense can shop around up to a short period before the trial date until they can find someone who is willing to present an opposing opinion. Defense could have gone through 20 to 30 experts before they found someone who would give them a favorable report. Also an old trick used by defense is don't show them all your cards...Dr. Spitz obviously was only shown one side of Caylee's head from the crime scene photos with the duct tape because he testified to that in court. But for defense it's how you play the game......win some, lose some. jmo

 

[PeteyGirl]

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?

There was enough critical circumstantial evidence that didn't need forensic analysis. In the great scheme of the body of evidence, the adipocere issue, yeah or nay, seems irrelevant.

Maybe a third or a half of the 300+ pieces of evidence were inconclusive or not "mature" and ready for court. For the majority of people who've been following, the remaining evidence was enough to put a sound conclusion together. Heck, even the Pinellas 12 put it together enough to be "sick" and "disgusted". They just lacked the courage to take the responsibility they ACCEPTED.

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

IMO, it was their collective lack of guts. And a couple of very outspoken jurists who've made a lack of guts in life into some kind of moral high ground.

I wonder if the jury selection consultants have measures or indexes to determine if a person is likely to wimp out (read: give up and make excuses) when confronted with such a grave decision?

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 let's CFCA off the hook for what she has done.

Like the jury, and many folks, unfortunately, a ton of effort is put into absolving responsibility, avoiding it or sticking fingers in ears and la la la-ing it away :crazy:

Even if the mothering instinct was a discreet blob of neurons in the brain, and Casey was born without it, she still did something stupid or evil that resulted in the death of Caylee. It takes a lot of maturity to accept responsibility for one's actions, even to see clearly where responsibility lies. It's a cop out to blame a missing blob of brain for Caylee's death, and insulting to Caylee's memory too.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

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

I wouldn't let you babysit my children. I wouldn't let anyone here babysit my children. I don't know any of you.

 

[PeteyGirl]

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.

Opinion is all about the person having it. Facts stand alone, and you can opine about them until the cows come home and facts will remain exactly the same.

You suggest that my part in this discussion is based upon my opinion, and that is only partly true. I (hope I have) qualified when I do give an opinion. Otherwise, I am doing my best to stick to the known facts.

With due respect, I wouldn't even bother having this discussion with anyone who is just composing opinions. I mean, how uninteresting. You personally are very interesting, don't get me wrong. My point is, opinions are like hind ends, everyone has one, has the right to have however many they can come up with and it's very intrusive and controlling of me to change something as deeply personal as YOUR OPINION.

It seems to me that it is ducking responsibility, for one's own words, to qualify ALL of them with "my opinion only". What a way to avoid taking responsibility. I think the mods have made this issue clear, for instance, calling FCA a murderer after she's been acquitted is disrespectful of the justice system, we are very respectful of it around here, and ought to be qualified with "IMO".

A person who is working with the facts and evidence of the Anthony case, drawing conclusions and making statements is involving themselves in a much deeper way than "JMO".

Unless, I suppose, a person equates having an opinion with having a belief. That is confusion.

I for one have beliefs about what happened to Caylee, and I derived those beliefs (not opinions) from examining the evidence. I am discussing my beliefs here (with some opinions now and then, of course), and I thought I was discussing your beliefs with you.

If it turns out all I am discussing is your opinions, then . . . well, two things. One, your opinions sure come across as beliefs and have fooled me. You have spent a lot of time here discussing your opinions as if they were based on the facts and evidence of the case. You've spent a lot of effort positing your opinions as statements that define some of the realities around this case.

Two, you have every right to your opinions and I have NO right to get in there and challenge them. I don't like to cross people's boundaries like that. I'm sad though because you are a great sparring partner

 

[kimpage]

I read on another thread not to read this one now i know why.uggghhhhh. There have to be some of the Pinellas 12 on here.Wished i was on the jury i would have made them go over the evidence...That is all before i post something that will get me a timeout.......:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[logicalgirl]

The only difference with the experts is that the SA's are the first to get reports from their experts and they report their findings and/or opinions and it usually stops there. The defense can shop around up to a short period before the trial date until they can find someone who is willing to present an opposing opinion. Defense could have gone through 20 to 30 experts before they found someone who would give them a favorable report. Also an old trick used by defense is don't show them all your cards...Dr. Spitz obviously was only shown one side of Caylee's head from the crime scene photos with the duct tape because he testified to that in court. But for defense it's how you play the game......win some, lose some. jmo

Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

 

[RR0004]

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.

So her failure to bond says more about "us" than it does about her? That's a unique way of looking at things. How does one pre-judge? Don't we have to analyze behavior AFTER we know of it?
Sorry at this point I can't remember my question...lol.

 

[RR0004]

Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

I wondered today (in an angry moment) how they sleep knowing what Casey did. I hope they have nightmares.

 

[RANCH]

The only difference with the experts is that the SA's are the first to get reports from their experts and they report their findings and/or opinions and it usually stops there. The defense can shop around up to a short period before the trial date until they can find someone who is willing to present an opposing opinion. Defense could have gone through 20 to 30 experts before they found someone who would give them a favorable report. Also an old trick used by defense is don't show them all your cards...Dr. Spitz obviously was only shown one side of Caylee's head from the crime scene photos with the duct tape because he testified to that in court. But for defense it's how you play the game......win some, lose some. jmo

Good point about the defense experts.One thing I noticed was the defense experts got their point across on direct, but on cross by JA 99% of the time, they bolstered the prosecutions case.I guess I see it different than this jury.

 

[RR0004]

Opinion is all about the person having it. Facts stand alone, and you can opine about them until the cows come home and facts will remain exactly the same.

You suggest that my part in this discussion is based upon my opinion, and that is only partly true. I (hope I have) qualified when I do give an opinion. Otherwise, I am doing my best to stick to the known facts.

With due respect, I wouldn't even bother having this discussion with anyone who is just composing opinions. I mean, how uninteresting. You personally are very interesting, don't get me wrong. My point is, opinions are like hind ends, everyone has one, has the right to have however many they can come up with and it's very intrusive and controlling of me to change something as deeply personal as YOUR OPINION.

It seems to me that it is ducking responsibility, for one's own words, to qualify ALL of them with "my opinion only". What a way to avoid taking responsibility. I think the mods have made this issue clear, for instance, calling FCA a murderer after she's been acquitted is disrespectful of the justice system, we are very respectful of it around here, and ought to be qualified with "IMO".

A person who is working with the facts and evidence of the Anthony case, drawing conclusions and making statements is involving themselves in a much deeper way than "JMO".

Unless, I suppose, a person equates having an opinion with having a belief. That is confusion.

I for one have beliefs about what happened to Caylee, and I derived those beliefs (not opinions) from examining the evidence. I am discussing my beliefs here (with some opinions now and then, of course), and I thought I was discussing your beliefs with you.

If it turns out all I am discussing is your opinions, then . . . well, two things. One, your opinions sure come across as beliefs and have fooled me. You have spent a lot of time here discussing your opinions as if they were based on the facts and evidence of the case. You've spent a lot of effort positing your opinions as statements that define some of the realities around this case.

Two, you have every right to your opinions and I have NO right to get in there and challenge them. I don't like to cross people's boundaries like that. I'm sad though because you are a great sparring partner

I'd like to see someone who agrees with the verdict mention Caylee's name and to tell me how it feels that justice for this little girl wasn't served.
Just a random thought.

 

[LCoastMom]

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.

I have wondered if in this case the defense presented a report and the State's position to their experts and asked them to come up with a theory that is as far removed from the obvious as possible.

Having experts say a bone that had sunk into the mud/debris was buried by a coyote or claim someone came along, collected Caylee's skull/mandible/hair mat and aged duct tape, put them together like a puzzle and left them to be found (in a matter of days) just made so little sense to me that I could understand JA laughing (or crying) about it. (There were plenty more but I'm sure you get my point).

The DT's job was to create reasonable doubt, while I found these theories to be preposterous - some bought into them. This is what I still don't understand.

 

[annalia]

If she didn't bond with Caylee, she still knew right from wrong. If she was sexually abused, ( which I don't believe she was ) she still knew right from wrong. If she came from a dysfunctional family, she still knew right from wrong. She wasn't mentally impaired. her mother was controlling and overbearing, her father a wimp, we haven't seen anything else that indicates she was in dire circumstances growing up.

How many excuses can be made for this woman?

The prisons are full of people who came from dysfunctional families, much worse than the Anthony's, people in prison who never had a chance at a normal life as a child, people who were sexually, physically and mentally abused, mothers who never bonded with their children, all convicted of crimes because they knew right from wrong.

Maybe they should all just be set free. Never convict anyone of anything again.

On the other hand there are people all over the world who have been abused, emotionally and physically, that go on to live productive lives.

CA ain't special.

JMHO

 

[Caligram]

Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

ITA. I should change my name to Cynical. Notice how the majority of the DT "expert witnesses" were kept under wraps for as long as they could, and then some. The ones who agreed to come on board had to not only disagree with the SA expert witnesses, they had to "appear" to believe the "garbage" they were spewing.

 

[kelian36]

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?

(respectfully snipped :seeya

LCoastM,
300 pieces of evidence that was ignored. Another thing that gave me great pause was the fact that during deliberations- not one time-NOT ONCE-did the jurors ask to reevaluate, reread or review any of the evidence.

 

[annalia]

Yes, remember the very well known expert the DF found in New York - if I wasn't so sick of discussing the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this case that pointed directly at FKC - I'd take the trouble to go back and look it up. I believe he was supposed to disagree with Dr. Vass, and during the Frye hearings Baez almost slipped up and mentioned his name. The problem was this well known expert did NOT disagree with him and there was no way Baez wanted him anywhere near the DT. Anyone else remember what I was talking about?

I tell you something, I used to love those cheeky Defense Lawyer shows and loved to see them outsmart the other team - but I will never watch those shows again, and I will always feel very cynical about listening to any Defense Lawyer's schpeal again - now what I know they will do to win - and knowing it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence - it is all about their egos and winning at all costs. Just disgusts me!

Of course it's about winning at all costs, especially in a high profile case where defense attorneys such as Baez want to make a name for themselves. Look at attorneys who jump into high profile cases. You think if no one ever heard of CA, lawyers like Mason, or Baden or any other DA who attached themselves to her case would care about her or represent her pro bono if she was just some unwed mother from nowhere?

How many times is it said that all a DA has to do is present reasonable doubt, they never say it should be the truth, just confuse a jury and they win. It's all a game.

 

[Caligram]

If she didn't bond with Caylee, she still knew right from wrong. If she was sexually abused, ( which I don't believe she was ) she still knew right from wrong. If she came from a dysfunctional family, she still knew right from wrong. She wasn't mentally impaired. her mother was controlling and overbearing, her father a wimp, we haven't seen anything else that indicates she was in dire circumstances growing up.

How many excuses can be made for this woman?

The prisons are full of people who came from dysfunctional families, much worse than the Anthony's, people in prison who never had a chance at a normal life as a child, people who were sexually, physically and mentally abused, mothers who never bonded with their children, all convicted of crimes because they knew right from wrong.

Maybe they should all just be set free. Never convict anyone of anything again.

On the other hand there are people all over the world who have been abused, emotionally and physically, that go on to live productive lives.

CA ain't special.

JMHO

BBM....I agree. She's not special, but her family treated her as if she was more than special. FCA did not fear either CA or GA. No way was she sexually abused. As to physical abuse, my belief is that CA should have not let go during that fight on 6/15.

 

[kelian36]

I read on another thread not to read this one now i know why.uggghhhhh. There have to be some of the Pinellas 12 on here.Wished i was on the jury i would have made them go over the evidence...That is all before i post something that will get me a timeout.......:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I had the same thought about the Pinellas 12.
Think about this Kimpage, the jurors have to live with their decision the rest of their lives. They don't want to do interviews, don't want their names released, some even moved to other cities to escape the media and the general public.

Making a quick decision about a child's murderer (mo)--not a good thing.

 

[kelian36]

BBM....I agree. She's not special, but her family treated her as if she was more than special. FCA did not fear either CA or GA. No way was she sexually abused. As to physical abuse, my belief is that CA should have not let go during that fight on 6/15.

:toastred::aktion:

 

[LCoastMom]

(respectfully snipped :seeya

LCoastM,
300 pieces of evidence that was ignored. Another thing that gave me great pause was the fact that during deliberations- not one time-NOT ONCE-did the jurors ask to reevaluate, reread or review any of the evidence.

It defies logic, doesn't it???