The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[Devon]

I believe she is guilty of things she WAS NOT charged with. I believe she neglected to watch her child closely and I believe she disposed of the body. MOO.

I agree.

 

[GiantPickle]

I don't think FCA murdered Caylee the way the state wants you to believe so technically she'd be NG of felony one in my world....but she absolutely is responsible for her daughter's death due to FCA's negligence. She is also responsible for improper disposal of a corpse/desecrating a corpse etc.

LOL. Kind of a twist on the words, like JF said about the verdict - "Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent".
Which makes me curious - the title of this thread is "The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?" - You obviously agree with the verdict - now does that say that you feel there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict? or do you feel that she is innocent? According to JF, they are not the same thing.
Just curious. How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent in the death of her daughter?

 

[SewingDeb]

I believe she is guilty of things she WAS NOT charged with. I believe she neglected to watch her child closely and I believe she disposed of the body. MOO.

Charge # 3 covered neglect, iirc.

 

[GiantPickle]

In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

but then they'd be sequestered for a few more weeks with the penalty phase.

 

[Devon]

i think she was very obviously involved. i just don't know to what extent. if i were on the jury, i would just not feel comfortable making that leap to a guilty verdict without more information. this is a controversial statement and i am not interested in arguing it, just simply answering your question.

i have said this before, but here it is again. i think this is the exact moment in time that the DT sealed the deal:

Agreed. I was quite surprised at the quite high levels of persuasion/belief that do not meet the standard of BARD, particularly "strong belief", but CM's chart is obviously legally correct because it received NO challenge from either the prosecution or the judge.

BARD is a very high level of personal conviction and I think many people just don't understand it. I also see many comments that IMO misinterpret the application of this concept of reasonable doubt, e.g. such as the DT's alternative theory not being 'reasonable', hence the PT's theory is the only 'reasonable' one etc., but that is not what it's about.

 

[GiantPickle]

she woulda got guilty on both of these charges from me:

Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse: The maximum penalty for aggravated child is 15 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 12 years, 1 month.

Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: If Casey Anthony is convicted of causing the death of Caylee by culpable negligence the maximum sentence is 30 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 16 years and 6 months.

source for chgs http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/273571/Casey-Anthony:-The-charges-against-her

I really can't understand why she didn't get count 3...if they believed the drowning (which I'm not sure they did) she was negligent

 

[Devon]

I agree with you. But for me, after the prosecution rested, I felt empty because I just saw a theory that wasn't proven. I don't think they focused on the chloroform or duck tape to tie it to KC, yet is was said to be the murder weapons. Even in closing arguments JA said he hoped the chloroform was used before the duck tape was applied. Well I could make this long but I won't. HOPED isn't a word you should use if you know. Respectfully, most posters here on the forum really strongly believe that the verdict was wrong but when you ask for the evidence it's the same ole same ole. Circumstantial and they just know. In the real world you have to prove it was murder, when charged with murder. The proof wasn't there in the prosecutions case and jurors knew that as soon as they were sent to deliberations. I remember thinking I just can't see a guilty verdict here. When watching a trial like this you have to put yourself in the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode. I applaud the jury for having the guts to do what they thought right even though they knew it wasn't going to be the favorite with the public.
I definitely think KC was there but I think it was some sort of accident and like a child she freaked and pretended it didn't happen. We won't ever know too many lies, and not just KC.

Agreed. When the prosecution rested I was stunned. I remember thinking "is that it"? By that time the DT had poked holes in much of their evidence and I was waiting for them to counter with something more persuasive, but it never happened. It was like being at a firework display on a damp night - everything just fizzled out. I thought that the jury might not have been able to set emotions and personal opinions aside and I must admit that I was surprised when the verdicts were read, but IMO they did the right thing and I too applaud them, since I'm sure they knew full well that they would be subjected to an angry backlash.

 

[Sustained]

I just do not think IMO that this jury considered their vacations etc and voted NG just to get out of there. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

IMO, they did want to get out of there. Why were they dressed up on Day 2 of deliberations and more importantly, think about this ...

If they deadlocked 6-6 on manslaughter, you mean to tell that all six of these intelligent jurors were swayed back to a not guilty verdict WITHOUT looking at any evidence or requested any readbacks of trial testimony ? Just like that because the foreman said we can't consider the 31 days, they were swayed back to not guilty ? Gimme a break ...

I tried to wear a juror's shoes in this instance ... if I was convinced she was guilty of manslaughter, someone would have show me the flaws in the EVIDENCE that would prove me wrong. Same as on this forum ...
So now go ahead and tell me now that the 6 not guilty manslaughter voters KNEW THE EVIDENCE BY HEART and could cite trial testimony verbatim and could sway the others just by snapping their fingers ? As Susan Moss said ... "we've been O.J.-ed".

 

[GiantPickle]

I really can't understand why CM's poster is OK and I get why the jury didn't quite understand what reasonable doubt meant. I've always been taught it doesn't mean "no doubt" so "strongly believe" should be on the guilty side...I might even think "guilt likely" would be also be on the reasonable doubt side. Without a video and 40 witnesses of exceptional character...it's always "strongly" or "likely" the defendant did it.

 

[askfornina]

i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

 

[Baznme]

Actually, I'm right here. And no, will be convicted and she is guilty are two diferent things.

I'm a little thick sometimes, but the inference that she will probably be convicted IMO, doesn't equate to anything other than perceived "guilt".

So, if you still believe that the phrase "probably will be convicted" and "probably guilty" is two different things, maybe you could explain that to us?

 

[LambChop]

I agree. I think the jury was extremely courageous in returning a verdict based NOT on emotions or their personal opinions of KC's character or behaviour, but on the LAW - the jury instructions, the evidence presented IN court and according to the standard of BARD.

I'm amazed at the number of posters who have taken the limited comments from 2 or 3 jurors as being representative of some sort of dereliction of duty by the entire jury. Those few who have given interviews were essentially just answering selected questions with a mixture of factual information (the process of their deliberations) together with some of their OWN opinions and feelings (which clearly, and quite rightly, did not influence their verdict decisions).

I can perfectly understand a juror feeling "sick to the stomach" at not being able to find a defendant guilty of any serious wrongdoing when the defendant has behaved in a truly despicable manner and when a sweet toddler's body was found skeletonised, scattered around a dank wooded area and chewed by animals. It's heart-wrenching, and I get the distinct impression (from those few juror comments) that they wished they could have found her guilty of something more, but the evidence just wasn't there for counts 1 - 3 (and I agree) and the state did not charge on anything else that might have been applicable to these particular circumstances.

They could not, should not, and DID not, use those feelings of disgust, anger or sadness to justify a verdict on any of the major charges when the evidence alone was inconclusive. JF's comment about 'connecting the dots' was absolutely right, IMO. She obviously understood the concept of connecting the dots but quite rightly said (not verbatim) that if there were just too many question marks about the evidence then they couldn't just fill in the blanks with speculation, accusations etc. and they clearly concluded (as I and many others have) that the state did not prove those charges BARD.

And yes, just in case anyone is wondering, I HAVE been following the case from the beginning, have been a member of this forum since October 2008 and have read (many times over) ALL the discovery. Even knowing ALL that I know about the case, I would have voted the same way as the jury did.

Common sense would tell you after process of elimination and the fact that KC lied you can only conclude one person was responsible for Caylee and that was her mother. If KC said Caylee drowned and her father found her and her father testified Caylee did not drown you can't consider KC was telling the truth about the drowning. This is a jury instruction regarding a witness lying. All the other State's evidence and specifically Dr. G's testimony points to felony murder. It was that simple. jmo

 

[Sustained]

Agreed. I was quite surprised at the quite high levels of persuasion/belief that do not meet the standard of BARD, particularly "strong belief", but CM's chart is obviously legally correct because it received NO challenge from either the prosecution or the judge.

BARD is a very high level of personal conviction and I think many people just don't understand it. I also see many comments that IMO misinterpret the application of this concept of reasonable doubt, e.g. such as the DT's alternative theory not being 'reasonable', hence the PT's theory is the only 'reasonable' one etc., but that is not what it's about.

Funny, I don't see speculative, imaginary, forced or possible doubt on CM's chart anywhere. And I am surprised that the State did not counter with a chart of it's own, showing the correct meaning of reasonable doubt. The way his chart reads to me is beyond the shadow of any doubt, not reasonable doubt.

 

[coco puff]

Common sense would tell you after process of elimination and the fact that KC lied you can only conclude one person was responsible for Caylee and that was her mother. If KC said Caylee drowned and her father found her and her father testified Caylee did not drown you can't consider KC was telling the truth about the drowning. This is a jury instruction regarding a witness lying. All the other State's evidence and specifically Dr. G's testimony points to felony murder. It was that simple. jmo

THANK YOU! Simple as that!

:woohoo:

 

[Chablis]

I believe she is guilty of things she WAS NOT charged with. I believe she neglected to watch her child closely and I believe she disposed of the body. MOO.

Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

 

[MissJames]

i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

Videos,read back of testimony or clarification of juror deliberation instructions .

 

[yolorado]

Charge # 3 covered neglect, iirc.

When watching the verdict, I about keeled over when the NG for neglect came out. That one scared me the most, proved the most soundly how hosed our so-called best in the world jury system is. How could all 12 go that way? ALL 12?! The only answer I can come up with is that isolating these people together away from their individual lives essentially made them into a group of one mind, probably set and determined by a strong opinion leader. I'll never be convinced that sequestering these people away from home and the real world, or grossly reducing the pool of jurors by the silly conventions which have come to hold sway in the system didn't determine the verdict rather than anything presented in court ... ANYTHING! The jurors who have spoken didn't give any indication of listening to, reading, or understanding the charges or JP's instructions to the jury. They didn't ignore what the judge told them to not consider. They stuck on Baez's opening statement and that was that. Not guilty of the child abuse charges? Oh my, what a country! She killed that baby. Talk about no proof...there was no proof of any innocent accident. If fact, everything presented indicated something else entirely. She had the baby in her custody, never reported her missing, blamed the baby's disappearance on others and threw her body away like trash. How was that acceptable to these jurors? This woman is FREE TODAY in America. Say it again- WHAT a country. FREE! Not even a convicted child abuser/neglector. Completely free. I've pretty much lost the considerable respect I used to have for our laws and legal system. I don't think I'll ever get very much of it back after this travesty. In the words of Cindy Anthony, "Something's wrong!"

 

[coco puff]

Someone please tell me why the defense could NOT explain how Caylee's body got to the swamp, hidden in trash bags, with duct tape found where her face should have been? If this was an accident, they should be able to explain it.

When my children are looking guilty and I ask what happened and they say "I don't know", you can bet they know and it ain't good!

 

[pcrum12]

Charge # 3 covered neglect, iirc.

In charge #3 the neglict had to be proven that it was Culpable.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable.

 

[grandmaj]

This thread is a train wreck this morning. Knock it off. We don't personalize posts and we do not insult one another and bash one another.

State your opinion do not talk about other posters on this forum, do not generalize and do not snark.

The list of posters who are going to be on TO if this continues is long. So knock off the drive by posts.