The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Respectfully snipped ...

No doubt GA will not be charged. All evidence is gone as with most molestation cases. It is usually he said she said. Sad but true.
All MOO

GA will not be charged because there never was any molestation. IF FCA was truly upset with GA (grand jury and trial testimony), why wouldn't she come forward with these molestation charges now that she has been acquitted in Caylee's death and can never be charged again ? She could testify against GA w/o any repercussions ... I'm holding my breath ... someone please tell me to exhale when the charges are filed.
 
Well, actually, there was a first murder trial which would make any subsequent murder trial the next one. (Really, to misrepresent my comment is an attempt at misinformation and it is not appreciated.) KC may have fooled one jury but it remains to be seen if she can fool another with the same unsubstantiated abuse claim.

And FWIW, I find it most revealing for a pro-verdict supporter to admit that there is no evidence for the molestation story, especially considering how central it appears to be in the pro-verdict dogma.

I certainly did not mean to misrepresent your comment - I went back to read your post and yes, you did say murder "trial". With all due respect, your stance is that you believe she murdered her daughter, right? Therefore, it is only logical that I took your comment to suggest she would murder again leading to another trial. I apologize if I misinterpreted your stance on the case.

As far as my admittance to no evidence of molestation, I'm afraid I didn't make my post very clear. No, GA did not admit the molestation. No, Casey didn't testify to said molestation. And, No, no one got on the stand as an eye witness to the molestation. To some, those 3 things = no evidence.

However, I didn't expect the perp to get on the stand and admit to the molestation (most don't), I didn't expect Casey to take the stand and subject herself to cross examination that would open the door to her lying, stealing, etc. that would prejudice the jury's minds. And as to witnesses, there may be eye witnesses but I again, did not expect CA or LA to admit to such.

Furthermore, there were 2 witnesses that were proffered that Casey did tell of sexual abuse but due to hearsay or whatever, the judge did not allow the jury to hear either of them. I'm speaking of TL and JG. And, in my opinion, it is not unnatural in incest to tell someone but not tell who the actual assailant was. I did the same thing. However, In my opinion both GA and LA made inappropriate advances, abuse.

Now, on to what evidence, in my opinion, did show up throughout this ordeal that there was molestation.

Some of the common symptoms in Adult survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse include Insomnia, sleep disorders, Addiction, Psychologic and Behavioral Presentations, Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, Dissociative states, Lying, stealing, truancy, running away, Poor contraceptive practices, Compulsive sexual behaviors, constant search for intimacy, among many others. To me, that screams Casey. IMO.

I found this site that had some interesting statistics. http://www.aaets.org/article120.htm .

"Although there is no single syndrome that is universally present in adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, there is an extensive body of research that documents adverse short- and long-term effects of such abuse. To appropriately treat and manage survivors, it is useful to understand that survivors' symptoms or behavioral sequelae often represent coping strategies employed in response to abnormal, traumatic events. These coping mechanisms are used for protection during the abuse or later to guard against feelings of overwhelming helplessness and terror. Although some of these coping strategies may eventually lead to health problems, if symptoms are evaluated outside their original context, survivors may be misdiagnosed or mislabeled."

More importantly, as an incest survivor myself, I literally see some of myself at that age, in Casey. And at a very low point in my life, I probably would have done anything my assailant told me to do.

All this said, again, is JUST MY OWN OPINION.
 
pcrum12 said: I don't think the DT nor I have ever stated that the molestation lead to a drowning. As to your far beyond conjecture, etc., I disagree. IMO the state was really stretching it as to their theory.


(apologies for the edit, but I had to extract your comment manually as your quote within a quote wouldn't quote for me.)

Yeah. That would be your "best posts of the day" poster thedeviledadvocate who tried floating the rape-led-to-drowning scenario. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to her/his posts (I specifically bolded the part of her/his comment that I was responding to so it should have been clear.)

BBM: My point being that was not the DT theory.
 
Respectfully snipped ....

I certainly did not mean to misrepresent your comment - I went back to read your post and yes, you did say murder "trial". With all due respect, your stance is that you believe she murdered her daughter, right? Therefore, it is only logical that I took your comment to suggest she would murder again leading to another trial. I apologize if I misinterpreted your stance on the case.

As far as my admittance to no evidence of molestation, I'm afraid I didn't make my post very clear. No, GA did not admit the molestation. No, Casey didn't testify to said molestation. And, No, no one got on the stand as an eye witness to the molestation. To some, those 3 things = no evidence.

However, I didn't expect the perp to get on the stand and admit to the molestation (most don't), I didn't expect Casey to take the stand and subject herself to cross examination that would open the door to her lying, stealing, etc. that would prejudice the jury's minds. And as to witnesses, there may be eye witnesses but I again, did not expect CA or LA to admit to such.

Furthermore, there were 2 witnesses that were proffered that Casey did tell of sexual abuse but due to hearsay or whatever, the judge did not allow the jury to hear either of them. I'm speaking of TL and JG. And, in my opinion, it is not unnatural in incest to tell someone but not tell who the actual assailant was. I did the same thing. However, In my opinion both GA and LA made inappropriate advances, abuse.

Now, on to what evidence, in my opinion, did show up throughout this ordeal that there was molestation.

Some of the common symptoms in Adult survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse include Insomnia, sleep disorders, Addiction, Psychologic and Behavioral Presentations, Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, Dissociative states, Lying, stealing, truancy, running away, Poor contraceptive practices, Compulsive sexual behaviors, constant search for intimacy, among many others. To me, that screams Casey. IMO.

I found this site that had some interesting statistics. http://www.aaets.org/article120.htm .

"Although there is no single syndrome that is universally present in adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, there is an extensive body of research that documents adverse short- and long-term effects of such abuse. To appropriately treat and manage survivors, it is useful to understand that survivors' symptoms or behavioral sequelae often represent coping strategies employed in response to abnormal, traumatic events. These coping mechanisms are used for protection during the abuse or later to guard against feelings of overwhelming helplessness and terror. Although some of these coping strategies may eventually lead to health problems, if symptoms are evaluated outside their original context, survivors may be misdiagnosed or mislabeled."

More importantly, as an incest survivor myself, I literally see some of myself at that age, in Casey. And at a very low point in my life, I probably would have done anything my assailant told me to do.

All this said, again, is JUST MY OWN OPINION.

I am truly sorry that you had to deal with sexual abuse in your life, but a lot of the behaviors described above also relate to sociopathy. If indeed FCA was sexually molested, why would she live at home with the perpetrator ? CA left for work early in the morning and FCA was left alone with GA Mon-Fri for quite a few hours. Sure, somedays she took off and claimed she was working, but there had to be many times where she was alone with him. It would have been really easy to get an apartment with a friend, rather than live at home. Also, why would she laud GA in the jailhouse interviews, claiming he had always been a "great" father and grandfather. Why would we believe anything she told TL/JG as she is a pathological liar ? And why did the DT not question LA about supposedly touching his sister ? And why would she trust GA at all around Caylee ? And lastly, why would she permit GA in the delivery room while giving birth to Caylee ?

IMO, the sexual molestation theory was a smokescreen designed to deflect attention away from FCA and onto GA. And please see my previous with the question of FCA going ahead with charges against GA now ...
 
No doubt GA will not be charged. All evidence is gone as with most molestation cases. It is usually he said she said. Sad but true.
All MOO

Respectfully snipped ...



GA will not be charged because there never was any molestation. IF FCA was truly upset with GA (grand jury and trial testimony), why wouldn't she come forward with these molestation charges now that she has been acquitted in Caylee's death and can never be charged again ? She could testify against GA w/o any repercussions ... I'm holding my breath ... someone please tell me to exhale when the charges are filed.

How do you know? How do you know she was not molested? Why wouldn't she now come forward? Why would she? That's like saying because someone doesn't report a rape it didn't happen. There's lots of reasons why she wouldn't. Who wants to relive it, AGAIN? She's the most hated woman in America? No one would believe her? She wants to try to live a normal life? To name a few. JMO but why do alot of sexual abuse/rapes go unreported?
 
No doubt GA will not be charged. All evidence is gone as with most molestation cases. It is usually he said she said. Sad but true.
All MOO



How do you know? How do you know she was not molested? Why wouldn't she now come forward? Why would she? That's like saying because someone doesn't report a rape it didn't happen. There's lots of reasons why she wouldn't. Who wants to relive it, AGAIN? She's the most hated woman in America? No one would believe her? She wants to try to live a normal life? To name a few. JMO but why do alot of sexual abuse/rapes go unreported?

And how do you she was molested ? Funny, she was prepared to relive it at the trial ...

And why would she come forward now ...

Because her supposed molesting father testified against her at both the grand jury and the trial and could have sent her to Death Row ... that's why.

But you're right about one thing ... no one would believe her and I'm part of that club. I choose to believe the loving grandfather rather than the lying sociopath.
 
Thank you. I'll try to answer your questions. See my responses in red.

Respectfully snipped ....



I am truly sorry that you had to deal with sexual abuse in your life, but a lot of the behaviors described above also relate to sociopathy. Unlike those that disagree with the verdict, I don't see Casey as a sociapath. I don't see her as unemotional. I see her trying to hold in her emotions at times, and express emotions alot throughout this case. Not only during trial but also in the jailhouse videos. If indeed FCA was sexually molested, why would she live at home with the perpetrator ? I did too until I was over 20 and had a child. I guess my self esteem was low. I guess it's not a stretch for me. CA left for work early in the morning and FCA was left alone with GA Mon-Fri for quite a few hours. I stayed after school every day knowing that my only way home was my perp. Don't ask me why, I question that daily myself. Sure, somedays she took off and claimed she was working, but there had to be many times where she was alone with him. Same thing, some days I stayed at a girlfriends but I didn't everyday knowing my mom worked 2nd shift and I'd be alone with him.It would have been really easy to get an apartment with a friend, rather than live at home. It's not as easy as you think. Especially when you have low self esteem. When you are a young mother no money no education mcdonalds is not going to pay the rent AND daycare. I also think, IMO, that CA really controlled that situation. Didn't want Casey to move out with Caylee. Also, why would she laud GA in the jailhouse interviews, claiming he had always been a "great" father and grandfather. I did. I loved him greatly. He was my father! I didn't understand how to not blame myself until many many yrs later and lots of therapy, after he passed away. However, I really think the jailhouse conversations wer for the public. They knew they were taped. Why would we believe anything she told TL/JG as she is a pathological liar ? See that's the tricky part. No of us will ever know probably but I just seen so much of me in her actions. And why did the DT not question LA about supposedly touching his sister ? IMO, I don't think she wanted LA brought in to any of the molestation. IMO, she really loves Lee regardless if he tried to "feel her up". Maybe she realizes he was a kid too and considering his father's actions, feels that he was just repeating what he seen. (total speculation on my part) And why would she trust GA at all around Caylee ? I don't think she did. IMO, she used the nanny excuse to leave the house WITH Caylee. I don't think GA was left with Caylee alone like CA wants the public to believe. JMO And lastly, why would she permit GA in the delivery room while giving birth to Caylee ? That Screams Cindy IMO. I think CA controlled all of them. IMO Cindy was trying to be the proud mommy and GA the proud daddy. IMO, Cindy wanted a do over. I just about bet that GA being in the delivery room was NOT Casey's decision. Yes, she could have said no but no one crosses Cindy and gets away with it.

IMO, the sexual molestation theory was a smokescreen designed to deflect attention away from FCA and onto GA. And please see my previous with the question of FCA going ahead with charges against GA now ...

I respect your opinion although we disagree. I'm really not trying to change anyone's mind on where they stand on the verdict. But, I certainly feel at times that I have to defend mine, lol. Expected considering most posters had her convicted 3 yrs ago. After all it's just an opinion. :seeya:
 
BBM.

What evidence was presented during the trial that GA was molesting KC when Caylee drowned? That scenario is so far beyond conjecture that it enters the realm of fantastical. This is not reasonable doubt. This is pure fiction.

A poster asked what very bad reason would cause GA to not call 911.

I asked the poster this question

If GA was sexually molesting KC the morning of the 16th, and Caylee slipped outside and drowned while this was going on, do you think GA would have called 911? Would GA answer honestly on the stand if he was guilty of molesting his daughter?

If this question is so far beyond conjecture that it enters the realm of fantastical, then I do humbly apologize. I did not realize that asking a question was equivalent to floating a theory.

Post 62 in this thread echos my thoughts on what evidence presented at trial shows that GA may have been guilty of molesting KC. I think that when Caylee was found drowned, KC had a mental break and went into denial. I think denial and grief explain the bad behavior for 31 days as well as lying to the police. If on top of the mental break and grief, KC had been in denial for years from sexual molestation, that just bolsters the bad behavior caused from the mental break, denial and grief of losing her child, but I believe she would have displayed very similar behavior at the loss of her child even if she has never been molested.

What evidence was presented during the trial that GA was molesting KC when Caylee drowned? NONE there was no evidence shown at the trial that showed that.

The question keeps coming up, why didn't GA or KC call 911? I simply asked the above question. I think some other reasons GA or KC may not have called 911, not related to molestation in any way, would be Panic, Grief, stupidity, fear of CA (rumors that CA had been choking KC the night before), or perhaps some dark secret that none of us even have a clue about, who knows. What we do know is, GA was not a credible witness to the jurors. The judge said they could choose to believe or not to believe any witness testimony. The jurors seemed to believe that GA and KC were both at the A's house on the morning of the 16th, and because of that fact, they could not find KC guilty on charges 2 or 3, and I agree with them.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
 
I was very recently a juror on a trial, and it wasn't much different than the CA trial. Minus I felt the prosecution did better in the CA trial than the one I was apart of, but as far as evidence, it was alike. It also took 3 years for the trial to get to court. The evidence was mostly based on what people said, or possibly seen. Mostly on a girl who was 15, and when the time she was 11, and her father who's testimony says nothing happened, and made up some nonsense excuse. What happened though was we felt that there was enough doubt to acquit him. My personal opinion was that there wasn't enough of an investigation, and they didn't do a very good job at finding things, which is very unfortunate, because I do think something happened, but there wasn't enough to go on, and too much time had past to find anything else from that time period.

What I learned from my first time as juror was that first of all, people do not understand "reasonable doubt". There were two educators even, and they didn't understand it at all, even after we asked the judge to explain it again. People do not understand it. I think that's a problem. Also, it is completely possible for jurors to not follow the rules. You have to sit there for an hour and listen to instructions that is mostly wishy washy, and half of it you forget. Then when you are part of a case that doesn't include physical evidence, it's even worse. There are people, I believe, that just can't get past that. They automatically want to say a person's not guilty, even when they are told over and over again from the start that there is no physical evidence.

I'm not knocking our whole system, but maybe there needs to be professional jurors or something. People who really know law or something. From my experience, I'm not sure people really get it.
 
I was very recently a juror on a trial, and it wasn't much different than the CA trial. Minus I felt the prosecution did better in the CA trial than the one I was apart of, but as far as evidence, it was alike. It also took 3 years for the trial to get to court. The evidence was mostly based on what people said, or possibly seen. Mostly on a girl who was 15, and when the time she was 11, and her father who's testimony says nothing happened, and made up some nonsense excuse. What happened though was we felt that there was enough doubt to acquit him. My personal opinion was that there wasn't enough of an investigation, and they didn't do a very good job at finding things, which is very unfortunate, because I do think something happened, but there wasn't enough to go on, and too much time had past to find anything else from that time period.

What I learned from my first time as juror was that first of all, people do not understand "reasonable doubt". There were two educators even, and they didn't understand it at all, even after we asked the judge to explain it again. People do not understand it. I think that's a problem. Also, it is completely possible for jurors to not follow the rules. You have to sit there for an hour and listen to instructions that is mostly wishy washy, and half of it you forget. Then when you are part of a case that doesn't include physical evidence, it's even worse. There are people, I believe, that just can't get past that. They automatically want to say a person's not guilty, even when they are told over and over again from the start that there is no physical evidence.

I'm not knocking our whole system, but maybe there needs to be professional jurors or something. People who really know law or something. From my experience, I'm not sure people really get it.

I feel that words in our laws, in courts ,can be twisted so that they don't even resemble the original intent. Phrases used to simply avoid truth such as "it depends on what the meaning of the word IS is"(no offense to President Clinton ,just a good example) . Common sense has been replaced ,but with what :waitasec:
If juries can no longer see the forest for the trees,our society is in even bigger trouble than I thought. If Casey got away with it ,anyone can IMO
 
Respectfully snipped ...

A poster asked what very bad reason would cause GA to not call 911.

The question keeps coming up, why didn't GA or KC call 911? I simply asked the above question. I think some other reasons GA or KC may not have called 911, not related to molestation in any way, would be Panic, Grief, stupidity, fear of CA (rumors that CA had been choking KC the night before), or perhaps some dark secret that none of us even have a clue about, who knows. What we do know is, GA was not a credible witness to the jurors. The judge said they could choose to believe or not to believe any witness testimony. The jurors seemed to believe that GA and KC were both at the A's house on the morning of the 16th, and because of that fact, they could not find KC guilty on charges 2 or 3, and I agree with them.

I respect your opinion, but do not agree. If GA was not a credible witness to the jury, why would the jury believe that he was at the house with FCA on the morning of the 16th ? GA was the one that testified to that. Sounds like you're saying the jury believed some of what GA said and not other things ?

I have also stated my opinion about a drowning and calling 911 many times. IMO, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that GA would not have called police if Caylee was found in the pool lifeless. He was an ex-cop with plenty of training in what to do in an emergency. I also believe FCA would have called 911 had not she done something to Caylee beforehand.

And if Caylee had the drowned in the pool, why would the Anthonys have left the pool up ? IMO, people would not swim in a pool with the memory of a drowning hanging over it ...
 
No doubt GA will not be charged. All evidence is gone as with most molestation cases. It is usually he said she said. Sad but true.

I seriously doubt there will be a "next" murder considering IMO there wasn't a "First"

All MOO

There will be another murder just like the first. imo
FCA will eventually get pregnant again.
She will become jealous of her child-again,
and will kill again.
moo
 
CAYLEE DIDN'T DROWN IN THE POOL There was never one shred of evidence that pointed to that. :banghead:
There was a trial, a trial based on evidence that pointed that FCA killed her daughter.
The jurors let her walk, they used no common sense. They gave a FCA a walk out of jail free card.
moo
 
A poster asked what very bad reason would cause GA to not call 911.

I asked the poster this question

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

snipped
There was not one piece of evidence that George abused his daughter. Casey's trial was MURDER TRIAL FGS not an abuse trial.
Shame, shame, shame, for saying such a thing about a grandfather whose granddaughter was murdered. :banghead:
moo
 
I just wanted to say something about the jury.

I was very recently a juror on a trial, and it was sort of like the CA trial. It was all about the "reasonable doubt" hoopla. Minus I felt the prosecution did better in the CA trial than the one I was apart of. It also took 3 years for the trial to get to court. The evidence was based on what one girl said about indecent contact with her father. What happened though was we felt that there was enough doubt to acquit her father. My personal response was that I couldn't argue what the other jurors were saying, even though I felt like something did happen, but it almost entirely based on feelings, and I couldn't necessarily argue it, because of the lack of evidence I could find, so I came to the conclusion that I had doubt.

What I learned from my first time as juror was that first of all, people do not understand "reasonable doubt". There were two educators even, and the one person didn't get it. Even after asking the judge. People do not understand it. I think that's a problem. Also, it is completely possible for jurors to not follow the rules. You have to sit there for an hour and listen to instructions that is mostly wishy washy, and half of it you forget. Then when you are part of a case that doesn't include physical evidence, it's even worse. There are people, I believe, that just can't get past that. They automatically want to say a person's not guilty, even when they are told over and over again from the start that there is no physical evidence.

I'm not knocking our whole system, but maybe there needs to be professional jurors or something. People who really know law or something. From my experience, I'm not sure people really get it. I don't hate the jurors of the CA trial as much as I did, because now I understand how hard it is. I still don't agree with CA's verdict, based on the evidence, but based on the process, I don't condemn all of the jurors anymore. You are stuck with random people of different personalities, some are domineering, and close minded, some just want to get out of there, and some go in with certain attitudes based on life experience. Then you have to argue each other, all the while trying not to cave in to a majority. Then you might have someone who complains about a hung jury, or missing more work. There's too many things that can factor in, even if they aren't supposed to. People aren't perfect, so therefore juries can't be perfect I suppose. It might be better if they are people who understand the law a little better possibly.

I can believe that some of them do feel terrible, even though they came out with a non guilty verdict. But you do have to go with evidence, and I guess they didn't see that. I personally don't know if they understood the instructions about common sense, but it is what it is. Ultimately it really is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent one be convicted of something, and hope for karma or something or let nature work it out. Like I said, I believe there was enough evidence to convict CA, but they didn't see that, and I can understand what they might have felt with that decision now. The only people that I will never respect is the defense, because imo, they made a mockery of it. I completely understand they have a job, but to throw things out there that have no base whatsoever is just making a mockery of the child's death. It's unethical imo.
 
Respectfully snipped ...



I respect your opinion, but do not agree. If GA was not a credible witness to the jury, why would the jury believe that he was at the house with FCA on the morning of the 16th ? GA was the one that testified to that. Sounds like you're saying the jury believed some of what GA said and not other things ?

I have also stated my opinion about a drowning and calling 911 many times. IMO, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that GA would not have called police if Caylee was found in the pool lifeless. He was an ex-cop with plenty of training in what to do in an emergency. I also believe FCA would have called 911 had not she done something to Caylee beforehand.

And if Caylee had the drowned in the pool, why would the Anthonys have left the pool up ? IMO, people would not swim in a pool with the memory of a drowning hanging over it ...

I respect your opinion as well. I respect everyone's opinions whatever they may be, whether I disagree with them or totally agree with them. Case in point, I totally agree with the opinion of the jurors who rendered the not guilty verdict on counts 1 thru 3 and guilty verdict on counts 4 thru 7, and I totally respect their opinion. I also respect JA's opinion that the duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's head, even though I totally disagree with that opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
 
I respect your opinion as well. I respect everyone's opinions whatever they may be, whether I disagree with them or totally agree with them. Case in point, I totally agree with the opinion of the jurors who rendered the not guilty verdict on counts 1 thru 3 and guilty verdict on counts 4 thru 7, and I totally respect their opinion. I also respect JA's opinion that the duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's head, even though I totally disagree with that opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

What about a 2 year old child that was killed? (imo)
Did she deserve any respect?
Did she deserve for her killer imo-to be punished?
Ever notice that 99% of WS posters think FCA killed her child?

I just read your avatar, now I get it.
 
JB told that contrived sexual molestation BS with all his vivid detail to fixate that "info" in the minds of the jurors. He should have been stopped and a mistrial called right then....because he had nothing to substantiate it. He knew that he couldn't repeat the molestation claims in his closing, but he poisoned the minds of this jury who was willing to accept that crap without any proff. WTH happened to BARD when it came to the unproved never-before revealed "GA's P#### in FCA's mouth story. There was a double-standard here, and it worked in favor of FCA. Did GA agree to the allegations to save the life of his daughter. Is that why JB kept harping at GA throughout the trial?
Whether it had been a horrible damnable lie that had the consent of GA doesn't make it any more excusable. What is inexcusable is that GA was not on trial, FCA was. I do not believe that Caylee Marie drowned, I do not believe any accident caused her death. I do believe that the death of Caylee Marie was caused intentionally, by the only one who did not love her more than life itself.
We are going round and round on this, and getting nowhere. I really feel sorry for those who truly had been sexually abused, because this trial made a mockery of those charges.
IMO IMO IMO
 
THANK YOU Caligram!
I couldn't agree more. This trial together with JB evenhandedly set back sex abuse crimes for years.

What JB did should be against the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
465
Total visitors
613

Forum statistics

Threads
608,452
Messages
18,239,611
Members
234,374
Latest member
Username4
Back
Top