The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[Sustained]

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.

We'll never see the day, but I'd like the jury to sit down and explain why they either used/tossed each piece of evidence during the deliberations.
That is, if they actually evaluated each piece individually ....

 

[PeteyGirl]

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.

I am directing my comment to the pro-verdict folks on this forum.

How the jury came to their verdict, and how pro-verdict posters on this forum came to their decision may or may not be related. I opine it IS related, and if the jury reached their conclusions with the same logical process used by the pro-verdict posters here, I OPINE both sets were unable to prioritize fact from fantasy Baez Style. That ANY doubt whatsoever equals reasonable doubt.

To doubt facts means the person doubting is unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to reign themselves in and respect facts.

If the jury had done that, and qualitatively examined the facts presented, I believe the verdict would have been at least guilty of negligence. If the jury had understood the concept of REASONABLE doubt, they would have not (as jury members have said in interviews) tossed away evidence as irrelevant.

Truth and facts are not relative or opinions. They exist in their own right. Even if all the forensic evidence were to be tossed aside, some very important facts remain unperturbed. Casey admitted she was the last person to see Caylee alive. Casey expressed consciousness of guilt by not reporting the accident (or whatever happened), lied to investigators, expressed no normal grief or reaction to the alleged kidnapping, had a death smell in her car that even she admitted to, and in general, behaved exactly in the same way responsible parties do when there is a homicide and they want it covered up.

Why the jury managed to toss THAT grossly obvious, practically inarguable set of facts out with the bathwater tells me these folks did not, or could not, differentiate fact from the fiction set forth by the defense.

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.

 

[cuppy199]

I don't have a link, sorry. But I do remember during the trial that picture of Caylee's skull as it was found was described as looking like an egg in a nest, something like that. I believe it was someone here, or maybe a TH that was there said it in a tweet or something. We didn't really get to see those pictures the jury did. If the hair was pooled around the skull like a nest, that means the tape had to be on both sides stuck to it. Otherwise, it wouldn't pool around the skull like a nest.

Anyone have links or could help me here? I know I'm not crazy. The tape was on both sides of the head in the hair, right? I do think there is an extensive duct tape thread on the Caylee Forum here. Just search for duct tape.

Here you go thanks to our wonderful Patti G for the video Its around the 37 second mark [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhwQevaRb_s&feature=related"]‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 6 - 6/18/11‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Aedrys]

I am directing my comment to the pro-verdict folks on this forum.

How the jury came to their verdict, and how pro-verdict posters on this forum came to their decision may or may not be related. I opine it IS related, and if the jury reached their conclusions with the same logical process used by the pro-verdict posters here, I OPINE both sets were unable to prioritize fact from fantasy Baez Style. That ANY doubt whatsoever equals reasonable doubt.

To doubt facts means the person doubting is unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to reign themselves in and respect facts.

If the jury had done that, and qualitatively examined the facts presented, I believe the verdict would have been at least guilty of negligence. If the jury had understood the concept of REASONABLE doubt, they would have not (as jury members have said in interviews) tossed away evidence as irrelevant.

Truth and facts are not relative or opinions. They exist in their own right. Even if all the forensic evidence were to be tossed aside, some very important facts remain unperturbed. Casey admitted she was the last person to see Caylee alive. Casey expressed consciousness of guilt by not reporting the accident (or whatever happened), lied to investigators, expressed no normal grief or reaction to the alleged kidnapping, had a death smell in her car that even she admitted to, and in general, behaved exactly in the same way responsible parties do when there is a homicide and they want it covered up.

Why the jury managed to toss THAT grossly obvious, practically inarguable set of facts out with the bathwater tells me these folks did not, or could not, differentiate fact from the fiction set forth by the defense.

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.

That, and apparently it's a-okay for a child to die by accident and for the responsible parent to cover it up as long as they have a weird family who raised them, and no one in the family knows how to properly react to an accident. That makes no sense at all to me. How can not reporting an accident be okay all of a sudden? The jury's sympathy was severely misplaced here. They should have been concerned why these grandparents let 31 days go by before wanting to know where their beloved granddaughter was. They should have been concerned that even an accident was COVERED UP and made to look like a murder! All because the family is not normal, so the defendant was not normal, and so in this situation, covering up an accident was an acceptable reaction to this jury. It blows my mind, it really does.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I am directing my comment to the pro-verdict folks on this forum.

How the jury came to their verdict, and how pro-verdict posters on this forum came to their decision may or may not be related. I opine it IS related, and if the jury reached their conclusions with the same logical process used by the pro-verdict posters here, I OPINE both sets were unable to prioritize fact from fantasy Baez Style. That ANY doubt whatsoever equals reasonable doubt.

To doubt facts means the person doubting is unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to reign themselves in and respect facts.

If the jury had done that, and qualitatively examined the facts presented, I believe the verdict would have been at least guilty of negligence. If the jury had understood the concept of REASONABLE doubt, they would have not (as jury members have said in interviews) tossed away evidence as irrelevant.

Truth and facts are not relative or opinions. They exist in their own right. Even if all the forensic evidence were to be tossed aside, some very important facts remain unperturbed. Casey admitted she was the last person to see Caylee alive. Casey expressed consciousness of guilt by not reporting the accident (or whatever happened), lied to investigators, expressed no normal grief or reaction to the alleged kidnapping, had a death smell in her car that even she admitted to, and in general, behaved exactly in the same way responsible parties do when there is a homicide and they want it covered up.

Why the jury managed to toss THAT grossly obvious, practically inarguable set of facts out with the bathwater tells me these folks did not, or could not, differentiate fact from the fiction set forth by the defense.

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.

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

 

[NotRocketSighence]

That's a very good point (forgetting the date your daughter actually died). I not only remember the day my daughters were born, but I know the time. These are things mother never forget. So how a mother would forget when her daughter died is beyond me.

Taking Casey out of the equation for a moment. Not all women who give birth automatically or ever get the motherly nurturing protective instincts. Regardless of the reasons. Not all do.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

I do not find anywhere in any doc or trial testimony that the tape was stuck to BOTH sides in the hair. Can you link?

Have you looked at the autopsy report done by Dr G. ?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I am directing my comment to the pro-verdict folks on this forum.

How the jury came to their verdict, and how pro-verdict posters on this forum came to their decision may or may not be related. I opine it IS related, and if the jury reached their conclusions with the same logical process used by the pro-verdict posters here, I OPINE both sets were unable to prioritize fact from fantasy Baez Style. That ANY doubt whatsoever equals reasonable doubt.

To doubt facts means the person doubting is unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to reign themselves in and respect facts.

If the jury had done that, and qualitatively examined the facts presented, I believe the verdict would have been at least guilty of negligence. If the jury had understood the concept of REASONABLE doubt, they would have not (as jury members have said in interviews) tossed away evidence as irrelevant.

Truth and facts are not relative or opinions. They exist in their own right. Even if all the forensic evidence were to be tossed aside, some very important facts remain unperturbed. Casey admitted she was the last person to see Caylee alive. Casey expressed consciousness of guilt by not reporting the accident (or whatever happened), lied to investigators, expressed no normal grief or reaction to the alleged kidnapping, had a death smell in her car that even she admitted to, and in general, behaved exactly in the same way responsible parties do when there is a homicide and they want it covered up.

Why the jury managed to toss THAT grossly obvious, practically inarguable set of facts out with the bathwater tells me these folks did not, or could not, differentiate fact from the fiction set forth by the defense.

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, 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?

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

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?

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?

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.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Yes...if their doubts were unreasonable. Remember, they were to take emotion out of the equation either way. Fact...Casey admits under oath that she was the last known person with Caylee. How do you doubt that?

 

[RR0004]

"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?

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

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?

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?

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.

Where do you see that?

 

[RR0004]

Taking Casey out of the equation for a moment. Not all women who give birth automatically or ever get the motherly nurturing protective instincts. Regardless of the reasons. Not all do.

So are you saying that it would then be easier for Casey to hurt her own child because she never truly had a motherly attachment? Could explain how she could stuff her child in garbage bags and toss her in the woods.

 

[jon_burrows]

I still don't get that whole time thing...nor the change in dates. How do you not know when your child died...accident or no accident? And I don't care if it was Cindy's mistake or not...IMPO...Casey wanted to steer the direction of the investigation as far away from her as possible. And who speaks of their child's abduction without a single tear? Oops...that was after she said it was a "domestic" issue. And the jury thought this was normal behavior for someone who knows her child is dead?

JB explained away the absence of tears due to ugly coping that morphed into Casey's world in front of the jury then spruced it up with a p#n#s in the mouth. It worked.

Regarding June 9th, Tony's statement, page 6 of 145. Anthony said while the defendant lived with her since June 9th...

June 9th date seems to keep popping up even outside the A family. Strange.

http://orlandosentinel.image2.trb.com/orlnews/media/acrobat/2008-08/41844520.pdf

IMO

 

[RR0004]

JB explained away the absence of tears due to ugly coping that morphed into Casey's world in front of the jury then spruced it up with a p#n#s in the mouth. It worked.

Regarding June 9th, Tony's statement, page 6 of 145. Anthony said while the defendant lived with her since June 9th...

June 9th date seems to keep popping up even outside the A family. Strange.

http://orlandosentinel.image2.trb.com/orlnews/media/acrobat/2008-08/41844520.pdf

IMO

If the jury bought the "no tears" they're more hopeless than I previously thought.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Where do you see that?

I see it in the last paragraph of the post I quoted:

"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 definately my opinion."

To me this reads that pro-verdict folks used inferior reasoning in coming to their concluisions, and I strongly disagree with that opinion.

The defination of inferior is

lower degree or rank
poor quality or mediocre
of little or less importance, value or merit

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Taking Casey out of the equation for a moment. Not all women who give birth automatically or ever get the motherly nurturing protective instincts. Regardless of the reasons. Not all do.

So are you saying that it would then be easier for Casey to hurt her own child because she never truly had a motherly attachment? Could explain how she could stuff her child in garbage bags and toss her in the woods.

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.

 

[coco puff]

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.

Duct tape does not reasonably belong anywhere in an accident theory and we know it came from her home and we know George and Cindy did not kill her so, IMO yes she did it beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

 

[gxm]

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.

KC admitted that she was the last person with Caylee. Caylee was found in a garbage bag in a swamp. It is quite logical and completely reasonable to put those two pieces together. The only folks presuming anything are those who ignore the clarity of the circumstantial evidence and KC's own words and deeds.

 

[Caligram]

The "grief counselor" who was a last-ditch effort by the DT to excuse FCA's behavior may have been brought in for another reason. The subject of family pets was introduced and it was odd that some trial time was used by JB asking CA, GA and LA how their pets were disposed of and who had the burial job. There was emphasis placed on plastic bags and tape. But somehow this also pointed to GA as his job was to dig the graves....so in the jury's already dislike of GA, he buried dead things. Somehow the fact that FCA could have copied the pet idea was never brought into play. This jury was not focused on finding if FCA harmed or intentionally killed Caylee Marie. This jury had their boogey man identified and pointed out to them, the dirty pervert GA, falsely accused constantly by the DT.
This jury didn't waste their time searching for the truth. They just knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the time they went into deliberations, that FCA never harmed Caylee Marie. They never asked themselves how Caylee Marie got the duct tape sealing her nose and mouth, got into plastic bags which were knotted, got into a laundry bag, and then got thrown into the swamp. The pictures of the skull, the bones of little Caylee Marie must have been horrendous. Perhaps too horrendous to think about. Much easier to think about sexual assualt and FCA as the victim.
IMHO

 

[kelian36]

If the jury bought the "no tears" they're more hopeless than I previously thought.

No kiddin. :banghead:

 

[NotRocketSighence]

KC admitted that she was the last person with Caylee. Caylee was found in a garbage bag in a swamp. It is quite logical and completely reasonable to put those two pieces together. The only folks presuming anything are those who ignore the clarity of the circumstantial evidence and KC's own words and deeds.

I don't pick and choose what to believe out of Casey's mouth to support my theories. I prefer to look at the evidence. For me, there was not enough to believe Caylee was murdered, much less by Casey or that Casey disposed of her body.