The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[thedeviledadvocate]

Here's a question I'd like them to answer :

Why did they come to court in their "Sunday go to meeting" clothes on the 2nd day ? To meet the media ... well, I guess that didn't happen. Maybe because they already had arrived at their verdicts ... shocking.

When they arrived that morning, the TH's were buzzing about the clothes they were wearing. It certainly seemed as if they either already had reached a verdict, or they were pretty darn sure they were going to reach one that day.

 

[cityslick]

Here's a question I'd like them to answer :

Why did they come to court in their "Sunday go to meeting" clothes on the 2nd day ? To meet the media ... well, I guess that didn't happen. Maybe because they already had arrived at their verdicts ... shocking.

I agree, that 2nd day was probably more to reaffirm their votes. I actually believe they 'deliberated' in a loose sense back at the hotel that night. It's the only way to explain how they were far apart on the manslaughter charge but came together in a span of 24 hours.

 

[cityslick]

Just guessing about this, but it seemed the state was basically trying to imply, that the chloroform search and the chloroform levels in the trunk were indicative of premeditation. Since the state showed no evidence of chloroform being made, bought, or ever being used by KC, maybe those 4 didn't see premeditation.

I agree with you and it lends itself to the original 10-2 vote. Vass testimony was dismissed and I can even recall during the trial that the discussion was the state really needed the jury to buy into what he was testifying to really prove there was chloroform in that car.

 

[logicalgirl]

Whaaaaat?

Those questions are supposed to be asked. Maybe they asked them....???


To answer the question... I watched the trial in prison(recently released), and none of us thought first degree murder.
The opinions there were manslaughter, child abuse(3F), agg manslaughter of a child, not guilty.

Interesting trial.

With respect FL Convict - I'd be very interested in hearing why you and the peeps who watched the trial thought not guilty on agg manslaughter of a child under 12 and none of you thought first degree murder....

 

[Aedrys]

I agree with you and it lends itself to the original 10-2 vote. Vass testimony was dismissed and I can even recall during the trial that the discussion was the state really needed the jury to buy into what he was testifying to really prove there was chloroform in that car.

Respectfully, we don't know for certain that Vass's testimony was just dismissed. It's also just as likely that the jury didn't understand his testimony, or didn't try to understand it. We don't know for sure what got dismissed and what was just not understood. Although, judging by the short deliberation time, it does seem like a lot evidence was dismissed. None of us was in that jury room to know that for sure, though. I do think the state proved there was chloroform there, but whether the jury bothered to listen to that testimony or just couldn't come to an understanding of it is a whole different story.

 

[logicalgirl]

Respectfully, we don't know for certain that Vass's testimony was just dismissed. It's also just as likely that the jury didn't understand his testimony, or didn't try to understand it. We don't know for sure what got dismissed and what was just not understood. Although, judging by the short deliberation time, it does seem like a lot evidence was dismissed. None of us was in that jury room to know that for sure, though. I do think the state proved there was chloroform there, but whether the jury bothered to listen to that testimony or just couldn't come to an understanding of it is a whole different story.

The sad part of it is - #1 - it was a lengthy Frye hearing that allowed Dr. Vass and his testimony to stand - which I am sure the jurors did not understand - it's not exactly a ten second sound bite or something worthy of an article in the National Enquirer or Entertainment Tonight, and #2 - it is only a matter of a short time before I believe Dr. Vass's work on this "sniffer" will be as acceptable in a courtroom as DNA.

 

[lauriej]

Respectfully, we don't know for certain that Vass's testimony was just dismissed. It's also just as likely that the jury didn't understand his testimony, or didn't try to understand it. We don't know for sure what got dismissed and what was just not understood. Although, judging by the short deliberation time, it does seem like a lot evidence was dismissed. None of us was in that jury room to know that for sure, though. I do think the state proved there was chloroform there, but whether the jury bothered to listen to that testimony or just couldn't come to an understanding of it is a whole different story.

..the jury foreman on the chloroform:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039

VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned the chloroform. How did that figure into this and into your thinking?


Jury Foreman: And you know, if there was possible more traces of it in greater amounts, more of a way of how it can be concocted, how it could be purchased, whatever may be -- none of that was ever there. So we were very limited in what we had when it came to chloroform.

We were told, and they did, you know, as far as how -- and what chloroform is detected in other products at the levels -- you know, chloroform is detectable in other products, as well. But there just was not enough, there really was not enough for us to bring chloroform into the mix.

We know there were smaller levels of it in the trunk. We know there was a Google search on it. And that's what we had. It wasn't detected anywhere else. It wasn't on the steering wheel. It wasn't on the handle of the door, going into the car. And even if there was, there still is a question of who and where.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done those searches for chloroform?

Jury Foreman: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.

But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.

 

[Aedrys]

..the jury foreman on the chloroform:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039

VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned the chloroform. How did that figure into this and into your thinking?


Jury Foreman: And you know, if there was possible more traces of it in greater amounts, more of a way of how it can be concocted, how it could be purchased, whatever may be -- none of that was ever there. So we were very limited in what we had when it came to chloroform.

We were told, and they did, you know, as far as how -- and what chloroform is detected in other products at the levels -- you know, chloroform is detectable in other products, as well. But there just was not enough, there really was not enough for us to bring chloroform into the mix.

We know there were smaller levels of it in the trunk. We know there was a Google search on it. And that's what we had. It wasn't detected anywhere else. It wasn't on the steering wheel. It wasn't on the handle of the door, going into the car. And even if there was, there still is a question of who and where.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done those searches for chloroform?

Jury Foreman: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.

But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.

That proves my point. They didn't understand how big parts per million is when chloroform is usually in traces of parts per trillion. Sounds the foreman didn't get it, and convinced the others that it wasn't there. He didn't understand Vass's testimony at all. There was more than enough there to suggest that chloroform was in that trunk.

 

[logicalgirl]

That proves my point. They didn't understand how big parts per million is when chloroform is usually in traces of parts per trillion. Sounds the foreman didn't get it, and convinced the others that it wasn't there. He didn't understand Vass's testimony at all. There was more than enough there to suggest that chloroform was in that trunk.

Yes, there was and in HUGE amounts....off the scale! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[LambChop]

Yes, there was and in HUGE amounts....off the scale! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

There should have no traces of chloroform in the trunk....zippo.

 

[NavySubMom]

..the jury foreman on the chloroform:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039

VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned the chloroform. How did that figure into this and into your thinking?


Jury Foreman: And you know, if there was possible more traces of it in greater amounts, more of a way of how it can be concocted, how it could be purchased, whatever may be -- none of that was ever there. So we were very limited in what we had when it came to chloroform.

We were told, and they did, you know, as far as how -- and what chloroform is detected in other products at the levels -- you know, chloroform is detectable in other products, as well. But there just was not enough, there really was not enough for us to bring chloroform into the mix.

We know there were smaller levels of it in the trunk. We know there was a Google search on it. And that's what we had. It wasn't detected anywhere else. It wasn't on the steering wheel. It wasn't on the handle of the door, going into the car. And even if there was, there still is a question of who and where.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you think that Cindy Anthony was telling the truth when she said that she had done those searches for chloroform?

Jury Foreman: Well, there's a lot of speculation into that. There's a lot that went into her and looking for the chlorophyll because she was worried about her dogs. You know, I don't know. With Cindy, it wasn't as obvious to me, the lying. I mean, she was -- she was in a lot of pain. She was in a lot of stress. You know, allegedly, she was on a lot of medication. And she's been questioned a number of different times.

But you know, as far as her going back and forth with that, you know, that was something that you always kind of kept in the back of your mind. You know, as far as her lying about it, well, there's, you know, people that may look into that and people -- but that was not something that we really considered much when we were going into deliberation.

Mr. Foreman can barely speak a coherent sentence, and since he "orchestrated" the deliberations (his wording), I think the other jurors just gave in to his NG thinking because they could not stand to listen to him talk in circles and not really say anything, or make any sense of what he was actually saying anymore, I think the jurors cried "uncle" and just could not stand to listen to him anymore :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
It would be funny if it was not such a travesty, however. MOO

 

[Brooke]

That proves my point. They didn't understand how big parts per million is when chloroform is usually in traces of parts per trillion. Sounds the foreman didn't get it, and convinced the others that it wasn't there. He didn't understand Vass's testimony at all. There was more than enough there to suggest that chloroform was in that trunk.

Couldn't agree more. I don't think they understood what the word 'volatile' means, either.

 

[2goldfish]

With respect FL Convict - I'd be very interested in hearing why you and the peeps who watched the trial thought not guilty on agg manslaughter of a child under 12 and none of you thought first degree murder....

I second this, I am very interested in this. especially, and no offense whatsoever intended to any convicts, from the POV of convicted felons - who may well know guilt when they see it.

 

[krimekat]

I don't agree with the verdict; I believe the State clearly showed neglect & abuse -- not to mention lying. I really thought she'd be found Guilty on neglect/abuse charges.

However, that's not how our Judicial system works -- we were not members of the Jury. We can continue to go 'round & 'round but it does not do anything. The Jury, as a whole, determined her fate. Regardless if they understood directions or not, they made a decision -- one I feel based mainly on being sequestered away from their families in the summer . . . she is one lucky chickie.

We should just let this die out . . . there are so many other "Caylees" out there. Almost pains me to see this activity on the board after the fact.

 

[cityslick]

Mr. Foreman can barely speak a coherent sentence, and since he "orchestrated" the deliberations (his wording), I think the other jurors just gave in to his NG thinking because they could not stand to listen to him talk in circles and not really say anything, or make any sense of what he was actually saying anymore, I think the jurors cried "uncle" and just could not stand to listen to him anymore :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
It would be funny if it was not such a travesty, however. MOO

Well, as far as 1st degree (where the chloroform plays a key role), he didn't need to do much convincing because the opening vote was 10-2 NG. I know no one wants to fault the state on anything, but I think they could of did a better job of illustrating Vass' testimony (specifically the parts per million) in a way that was simple and clear. Still may not have made a difference, but who knows.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

That proves my point. They didn't understand how big parts per million is when chloroform is usually in traces of parts per trillion. Sounds the foreman didn't get it, and convinced the others that it wasn't there. He didn't understand Vass's testimony at all. There was more than enough there to suggest that chloroform was in that trunk.

About the chloroform level in the trunk being in parts per million.
Let us hypothetically say, the jury completely understood what Dr. Vass was saying, and did know that the chloroform level in the trunk of the Pontiac was shockingly high:
What inference could be made from the fact that the chloroform levels in the air in the trunk were shockingly high?
What inferences were made by the state in regards to the chloroform level in the trunk being shockingly high?

 

[Aedrys]

About the chloroform level in the trunk being in parts per million.
Let us hypothetically say, the jury completely understood what Dr. Vass was saying, and did know that the chloroform level in the trunk of the Pontiac was shockingly high:
What inference could be made from the fact that the chloroform levels in the air in the trunk were shockingly high?
What inferences were made by the state in regards to the chloroform level in the trunk being shockingly high?

Not sure what you're asking, but it should have meant something to them since no chloroform should have been there AT ALL since chloroform is volatile and evaporates! Even the witness who tested the car sample sourly admitted that on the stand. None should have been detectable at all. So where did all that chloroform come from? That's what the jury should have been thinking about. It doesn't just materialize out of thin air, and the Anthony's used Bacquacil in their pool, which doesn't contain chlorine - so NO chloroform came from their pool water. What does that leave? Can't be Caylee's body as it was too small to give off the levels needed to leave traceable amounts in that car trunk. It didn't come from the garbage either. It didn't come from cleaning products, which we've investigated on this board. Where did those traces come from? What does that leave as the culprit for the choloroform?

 

[jon_burrows]

Well, as far as 1st degree (where the chloroform plays a key role), he didn't need to do much convincing because the opening vote was 10-2 NG. I know no one wants to fault the state on anything, but I think they could of did a better job of illustrating Vass' testimony (specifically the parts per million) in a way that was simple and clear. Still may not have made a difference, but who knows.

The crime was 1st degree murder without the chloroform. I believe Caylee was suffocated by the duct tape. Suffocating any person is 1st degree murder because they have time to reflect and stop.

Premeditation can mean seconds. It took time to get the duct tape. It took time to put three layers of duct tape over Caylee's face and it took time for her to suffocate.

IMO

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Not sure what you're asking, but it should have meant something to them since no chloroform should have been there AT ALL since chloroform is volatile and evaporates! Even the witness who tested the car sample sourly admitted that on the stand. None should have been detectable at all. So where did all that chloroform come from? That's what the jury should have been thinking about. It doesn't just materialize out of thin air, and the Anthony's used Bacquacil in their pool, which doesn't contain chlorine - so NO chloroform came from their pool water. What does that leave? Can't be Caylee's body as it was too small to give off the levels needed to leave traceable amounts in that car trunk. It didn't come from the garbage either. It didn't come from cleaning products, which we've investigated on this board. Where did those traces come from? What does that leave as the culprit for the choloroform?

I am asking what does high levels of chloroform in a trunk mean, in regards to proving KC used chloroform on Caylee?

The mere fact that the levels were too high, when they should have been non existant does nothing but raise questions. It makes you wonder how could those levels be so high. It makes you wonder what could cause those levels to be so high. It doesn't put a chloroform doused rag in KC's hand.

Neither the state nor Dr. Vass gave any reason why the chloroform level was so high, only that it was high.

What does high levels of chloroform in a trunk prove?

I don't understand how the unexplained high level of chloroform can be connected to KC. There isn't enough information. The state and Dr. Vass did not say, it is possible that if KC accidently broke a bottle of chloroform in the trunk while using it on Caylee, the chloroform level in the trunk could have been shockingly high. The state and Dr. Vass offered no explanation at all as to what may have caused the high level of chloroform.

 

[jon_burrows]

I am asking what does high levels of chloroform in a trunk mean, in regards to proving KC used chloroform on Caylee?

The mere fact that the levels were too high, when they should have been non existant does nothing but raise questions. It makes you wonder how could those levels be so high. It makes you wonder what could cause those levels to be so high. It doesn't put a chloroform doused rag in KC's hand.

Neither the state nor Dr. Vass gave any reason why the chloroform level was so high, only that it was high.

What does high levels of chloroform in a trunk prove?

I don't understand how the unexplained high level of chloroform can be connected to KC. There isn't enough information. The state and Dr. Vass did not say, it is possible that if KC accidently broke a bottle of chloroform in the trunk while using it on Caylee, the chloroform level in the trunk could have been shockingly high. The state and Dr. Vass offered no explanation at all as to what may have caused the high level of chloroform.

I think the fact that FCA googled 'How to make chloroform' combined with the shockingly high levels found in the trunk is pretty strong evidence that she attempted to make it and use it on Caylee. Also, Dr. Vass had no knowledge of the 'How to make chloroform' google search. The chloroform was a surprise to everyone so they asked the computer forensics team to look for anything related to chloroform. Coincidence?

I think the same scenario happened with the heart sticker. The lab tech processing the tape had no idea FCA liked heart stickers and liked to put hearts on her pictures. The lab tech asked the CSIs if a heart sticker was found and voila, a heart sticker was found at the scene. What are the chances?

I think the jurors could have disregarded all the chloroform and heart sticker evidence and still found her guilty of first degree murder. If only that one juror held out and said,

"No, I will not go along with a NG verdict because duct tape on the mouth and the nasal area of a toddler whose body was wrapped in trash bags and thrown out like trash spells murder. Her death certificate says 'homicide'. Her mother's car was abandoned, towed, and smelled like a dead body. Witness after witness said FCA was just fine during the entire month and they had videos to prove it strolling through blockbuster hours after she killed her child. Shopping, shopping and more shopping. The lies she told about Caylee's whereabouts, to include a phone call from a dead Caylee. 31 DAYS." The list goes go on and on."

IMO