The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[RANCH]

Its perhaps confusing cause you are taking one comment out of a conversation and not taking it in context. It might help to go back to the original post that I first responded to.

We were discussing whether Casey drove the car to Amscot and left it there and walked away from it permanently because it smelled bad OR if she ran out of gas and it was pushed there with a view to retrieve it later on at some point.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wonder why she didn't retrieve the car later? If it was just out of gas that should be no big deal. She dealt with that before right?

 

[yolorado]

What IF she ran out of gas, or didn't run out of gas? The car was abandoned by FCA, and it smelled like death, Caylee was gone/missing/murdered. What does a full tank or not a full tank have to do with the murder of Caylee, the verdict, anything? I'm really interested to know your perspective on the statements you posted.

Precisely. There's a lot to indicate she didn't run out of gas as many on WS have explained incessantly, but whether or not she ran out of gas has nothing to do with anything. Smoke. Mirrors. Distraction. Deflection. Gas or no gas. She still abandoned the car with the smell of death and her baby's baby doll and a hair from her baby's head containing death bands. THAT is the salient fact here. Period. Gas or no gas doesn't change that.

 

[yolorado]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wonder why she didn't retrieve the car later? If it was just out of gas that should be no big deal. She dealt with that before right?

Yeah, apparently, there was a gas station close by the Amscott. She knew where there were gas cans. We know that. Tony could have taken her to get gas. Anybody could have taken her to get gas. She could have joined tripple A and had them bring gas. However, she never did. She abandoned the car. Period. It smelled of death. She told that to Amy and lots of people smelled it later on.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wonder why she didn't retrieve the car later? If it was just out of gas that should be no big deal. She dealt with that before right?

The time line on acandyrose fills in those questions for me.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein ...

Please tell me we aren't insane. With this evidence we keep going over and over it again, and, are we really expecting different results?

I don't think it matters which side of the fence you are on, we are all still searching for answers, and the trial and verdict did not supply the answers we were searching for. We simply do not know for certain what happened to Caylee, and its driving us all insane.

Many of us pored over the evidence for 3 years. We all hoped that the trial would bring new evidence that would give us the answers we needed. Even if the verdict had been guilty, we would not have known how KC went about administering the chloroform and duct tape (if that is what happened), and we would not have known when she did it, and we would not know where she did it, and we would not have known why she did it (unless you really believe she murdered her baby so she could go out to party at Fusions). We would not have known when she dropped Caylee in the woods, or why she placed her in the woods, or why she drove around with a deceased Caylee in the trunk. These and so many other questions have been left unanswered.

With all these unanswered questions, we are all having difficulty finding closure with this tragedy. Maybe this is why we still get so angry, so frustrated, so sad, and so I don't know insane over this case.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[RANCH]

The time line on acandyrose fills in those questions for me.

I was hoping for a more personal opinion but thanks anyway.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

I was hoping for a more personal opinion but thanks anyway.

Hey Ranch. I don't have a lot of personal opinion to share to be honest. I wasn't there. None of us were.

So many lies, so much over kill media hype and misleading exaggerated sensationalism biased media reporting and a LOT of emotion, anger, venom, intolerance in the court of public opinion and the abject lack of respect for those who hold a different view. (in all venues not speaking about WS although intolerance trickles here too)

I, like many others here, have followed it since the story broke, nightly, and watched every moment of the trial. Crime fascinates. Ex career law enforcement, SAR, security experience. This case fascinated me, but more so, did everyones reactions to it.

The verdict and trial itself, which is what this thread is centered around didn't prove its case for me. I also understand I was a tv viewer of the trial, privy to more than the jury and not privy to some of what the jury got to see.

Outside of that, I like to look at all sides of things, at least the other side if I can and discuss the options and see where it goes.

I hope that gives you a little more insight and I wasn't blowing your comment off.

 

[TexanMom]

Biased media reporting? Biased against whom? Can't say it was biased against FCA! Her lawyer JB was "down and dirty" with the media, and never turned down an opportunity to get his mug on camera. He also fought against a media gag order. Funny thing is, he also said the media was "biased." Hypocrisy, thy name is Jose Baez!

 

[RANCH]

Hey Ranch. I don't have a lot of personal opinion to share to be honest. I wasn't there. None of us were.

So many lies, so much over kill media hype and misleading exaggerated sensationalism biased media reporting and a LOT of emotion, anger, venom, intolerance in the court of public opinion and the abject lack of respect for those who hold a different view. (in all venues not speaking about WS although intolerance trickles here too)

I, like many others here, have followed it since the story broke, nightly, and watched every moment of the trial. Crime fascinates. Ex career law enforcement, SAR, security experience. This case fascinated me, but more so, did everyones reactions to it.

The verdict and trial itself, which is what this thread is centered around didn't prove its case for me. I also understand I was a tv viewer of the trial, privy to more than the jury and not privy to some of what the jury got to see.

Outside of that, I like to look at all sides of things, at least the other side if I can and discuss the options and see where it goes.

I hope that gives you a little more insight and I wasn't blowing your comment off.

Thanks for the insight. I'm not sure what you mean by "I wasn't there" in regards to having a personal opinion? What I meant was I was curious about your opinion vs someone else. Not that you were physically present when these events took place. Once again, sorry for the confusion.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Thanks for your reply. While I can appreciate your not seeing any proof of a murder, I'm a bit confused about you believing it to be an accidental drowning. What I'm failing to see is proof of an accidental drowning.

There was MORE evidence presented in the trial that supported duct tape or chloroform as a method of "death" than evidence to support a drowning.

In the absence of any evidence, Caylee drowning is extremely reasonable. But the PRESENCE of duct tape on the head (perhaps even holding the mandible in place, when certainly it would have disarticulated so easily) and the PRESENCE of chloroform in the trunk are bits of evidence that point away from drowning as a cause of death.

I suppose if there were not chloroform or duct tape, just a discarded corpse, a drowning death would be equally reasonable as an intentional or negligent death.

But there was Frye hearing substantiated EVIDENCE leading to a cause of death that was NOT drowning.

Which is why I couldn't "vote" for drowning, the evidence supports something else

 

[PeteyGirl]

Isn't that what you are doing by suggesting they wanted to go home early. There was no evidence to suggest that either. Nor that they were lazy and didn't do their jobs.

If the jury came back in the same or less time with a guilty verdict no one would even blink on the amount of time it took or why it took them that amount.

The jury "wanting to just go home" and being "lazy" are value judgments, and so I agree with you that those terms are too personal, leaning too far toward "making up stories".

On the other hand, there are mountains of evidence that they jury misunderstood and/or ignored the jury instructions. In their own words when they did speak to the media. In fact, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the jury deliberately cut corners and ignored the more complex scientifically based circumstantial evidence, waved it away.

A VERIFIABLE lack of effort on the part of the jury, rather than laziness, perhaps?

The motivations for their lack of effort could be legion, but are probably pretty simple. Just wanting to go home to their families seems pretty reasonable. If *I* were sequestered for six weeks the way they were, I'd want to go home like you wouldn't believe. It is one scenario that supports their lack of effort. You've got to admit, it's the most reasonable scenario, all things considered.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein ...

Please tell me we aren't insane. With this evidence we keep going over and over it again, and, are we really expecting different results?

I'm not, I don't think anyone here, whatever "side" they are on, expect our debates to change what happened.

I don't think it matters which side of the fence you are on, we are all still searching for answers, and the trial and verdict did not supply the answers we were searching for. We simply do not know for certain what happened to Caylee, and its driving us all insane.

Many of us pored over the evidence for 3 years. We all hoped that the trial would bring new evidence that would give us the answers we needed. Even if the verdict had been guilty, we would not have known how KC went about administering the chloroform and duct tape (if that is what happened), and we would not have known when she did it, and we would not know where she did it, and we would not have known why she did it (unless you really believe she murdered her baby so she could go out to party at Fusions). We would not have known when she dropped Caylee in the woods, or why she placed her in the woods, or why she drove around with a deceased Caylee in the trunk. These and so many other questions have been left unanswered.

With all these unanswered questions, we are all having difficulty finding closure with this tragedy. Maybe this is why we still get so angry, so frustrated, so sad, and so I don't know insane over this case.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Maybe a crucial difference between those who agree and don't agree with the verdict is that we on the "don't agree" side don't insist upon knowing HOW Caylee died, exactly, or even why in particular her mother killed her.

Without knowing why or how, the evidence we were given was enough to eliminate reasonable doubt that Casey was IN SOME WAY responsible for Caylee's death.

What this suggests, perhaps, is that I am personally willing to believe WITHOUT direct evidence, as long as the circumstantial evidence paints a reasonable picture.

Maybe my life experiences, and my preferences and temperament lend me to accept a mountain of indirect evidence in the absence of a lot of direct evidence?

I don't need to lay eyes upon a thing to believe that it exists, but I need a ton of evidence that I trust to be true. Everyone has a different threshold here.

 

[TexanMom]

The jury "wanting to just go home" and being "lazy" are value judgments, and so I agree with you that those terms are too personal, leaning too far toward "making up stories".

On the other hand, there are mountains of evidence that they jury misunderstood and/or ignored the jury instructions. In their own words when they did speak to the media. In fact, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the jury deliberately cut corners and ignored the more complex scientifically based circumstantial evidence, waved it away.

A VERIFIABLE lack of effort on the part of the jury, rather than laziness, perhaps?

The motivations for their lack of effort could be legion, but are probably pretty simple. Just wanting to go home to their families seems pretty reasonable. If *I* were sequestered for six weeks the way they were, I'd want to go home like you wouldn't believe. It is one scenario that supports their lack of effort. You've got to admit, it's the most reasonable scenario, all things considered.

And alternate juror #14 also admitted that the jurors were discussing this case when they were not supposed to.

 

[lauriej]

And alternate juror #14 also admitted that the jurors were discussing this case when they were not supposed to.

..the teacher, russH? when did he say this if you don't mind my asking..

( i thought i'd read all of his mindless ramblings------and hero worship of the jury foreman..)

 

[2goldfish]

I've read the thread and all other threads. I've also read every document. IMO there is only an inferrance.

I might also direct you to this part of a hearing here


this version is adjusted for volume, but you can still clearly hear what ashton is saying - her reaction speaks volumes about the tape.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_zbUtrqKI8"]Casey says "Make him stop" volume adjusted - YouTube[/ame]

I think about this hearing a lot. her behaviour seems so odd for losing her child in an "accidental drowning".

I grant you I know that this could never have been evidence - but we (thank anything you believe in) are not the jury.


eta: here is the whole thing.....this answers a lot of the questions about tape for me.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9UECWMtKeA"]Casey Anthony Motions Hearing 12/11/09 - 17 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LambChop]

Two things the jury were not aware of about the parking lot at Amscot. GA cashed his paycheck there weekly. Had the car still been there when he cashed his paycheck he would have noticed because the car was backed in with the front of the car and the boot showing. He would have seen it immediately. I think that is why KC told TL her father would take care of the car. GA was famous for "detailing" the family's cars. Once GA found the car he would have cleaned it thinking the smell came from the trashbag and KC would have had her car back, smelling like new. She would not have realized you can't get rid of that smell. Second CA had to pass by Amscot on her way to work. Had the car not been towed CA may have noticed it eventually and had GA bring the car home. We know from KC's own omissions she always has a backup plan. lol

We all know KC expects everyone to clean up after her. Take care of her, provide her with funds, either willingly or she will take matters into her own hands. jmo

 

[yolorado]

There was MORE evidence presented in the trial that supported duct tape or chloroform as a method of "death" than evidence to support a drowning.

In the absence of any evidence, Caylee drowning is extremely reasonable. But the PRESENCE of duct tape on the head (perhaps even holding the mandible in place, when certainly it would have disarticulated so easily) and the PRESENCE of chloroform in the trunk are bits of evidence that point away from drowning as a cause of death.

I suppose if there were not chloroform or duct tape, just a discarded corpse, a drowning death would be equally reasonable as an intentional or negligent death.

But there was Frye hearing substantiated EVIDENCE leading to a cause of death that was NOT drowning.

Which is why I couldn't "vote" for drowning, the evidence supports something else

Plus, the mother never reported an accident.

There is no proof of an accident,including no explanation by the mother of the circumstances of any accident.

The mother did not summon help, which in the case of an accident might have recovered the child.

The mother did not cause the child to be buried or cremated as accident victims are, she threw her child away to rot in the elements and be devoured by animals.

Again, the mother never claimed her baby died accidentally, let a search for the child continue and then a murder investigation ensue, AND in fact, denied this was an accident.

All the mother's actions indicate this was not an accident.

This jury gives us a society in which women don't have to account for the safety of their children at all but may simply toss them away dead, like trash, without having to prove anything to anyone. Oh boy, it's a great country, isn't it?

 

[RoseTree]

Additionally, the drowning theory appeared to have been abandoned after opening statements.

 

[yolorado]

Additionally, the drowning theory appeared to have been abandoned after opening statements.

It is shocking to me that a drowning theory was permitted to be introduced in statements without any requirement that the defendant both assert it and explain it, which SHE never did, ever-not in three years, not at trial. My problem with all this is that the jury seemed to be OK with mothers throwing their children away like trash and not even having to account for why, let alone be held responsible. Hope that doesn't lead to it happening more often.

 

[LambChop]

Another thing I think the jury totally missed was the gas can incident. Here KC breaks into her father's shed by breaking the door portion that holds the lock...which probably would require replacing to door to be able to relock it, then she takes the gas cans and leaves no note or calls her father or mother to say, hey I had to take the cans because I ran out of gas. In their depositions CA and GA both say the key to the shed was in the garage (not sure the jury was aware of this). KC knew that so why break into the shed, unless she planned to keep the cans because she had no money to get gas herself and wanted her father to believe someone stole them. When KC runs out of gas someone always managed to bring her gas.

So GA tries to get into her trunk and KC has a virtual meltdown, runs ahead of him, grabs the cans and spouts profanity to him as if this were all his fault. She did not want him near that trunk because that smell was already starting to develop. KC could stop her mother and feed her mother the stories but she knew her father was not about to buy into anything she had to say.

The gas can incident should have been a red flag to the jury. jmo