The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[sacrablue]

I don't think the state proved conclusively that Casey used duct tape on Caylee. They did not exclude everyone else except Casey to that duct tape. The trunk is a different matter. I agree that the jury dismissed the evidence that there was decomp in the trunk. The state relied on new evidence collection (air samples) as a smoking gun, the same way the OJ trial relied on new evidence collection (DNA) at the time. Both trials resulted in the same result.

I can't fault the jury if they didn't see Vass' testimony as proof there was a body in the trunk. I also can't fault them for not trusting non-experts (GA, car storage guy) when they say it smelled like a dead body in there. I can fault them on dismissing the dogs because that is not new technology, I wish the state emphasized that more.

I wish GA distanced himself more from any accusations the defense threw at him. But it didn't appear that way half the time. He didn't always sound sincere IMO.

Since we never got to open decomp cans thanks to Perry, which I will never understand. The jury needed a shot of real life or death in this case.
I am doing my own collection of decomp and preserving to see if odor molecules will sustain in sealed container.

 

[Sustained]

Since we never got to open decomp cans thanks to Perry, which I will never understand. The jury needed a shot of real life or death in this case.
I am doing my own collection of decomp and preserving to see if odor molecules will sustain in sealed container.

This jury needed a few things :

1) A piece of paper with chloroform instructions in FCA's handwriting.
2) A video of FCA applying the chloroform and duct tape to Caylee's mouth and nose
3) A video of FCA dumping the body on Suburban Drive
4) A video of FCA leaving the Anthony home on 6/16

After getting all of those, they still probably would have tossed any testimony by a handwriting expert and disputed the date on the video tapes.

 

[2goldfish]

Is it more comforting to believe that the good guys were defeated by fools?

my snip.


no, not it is not. but they were defeated by 12 people from pinellas county regardless of whether that comforts me.

 

[logicalgirl]

Anybody got the addresses of the Pinella County jurors?

I hope this article is printed in their local papers and in their TV News reports.

Who knew it would take the DCF to get it even partially right?

Re: the article just posted in the Weekly News - No Discussion thread.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-anthony-dcf-report-20110811,0,1774056.story

 

[pinup]

I don't think the state proved conclusively that Casey used duct tape on Caylee. They did not exclude everyone else except Casey to that duct tape. The trunk is a different matter. I agree that the jury dismissed the evidence that there was decomp in the trunk. The state relied on new evidence collection (air samples) as a smoking gun, the same way the OJ trial relied on new evidence collection (DNA) at the time. Both trials resulted in the same result.

I can't fault the jury if they didn't see Vass' testimony as proof there was a body in the trunk. I also can't fault them for not trusting non-experts (GA, car storage guy) when they say it smelled like a dead body in there. I can fault them on dismissing the dogs because that is not new technology, I wish the state emphasized that more.

I wish GA distanced himself more from any accusations the defense threw at him. But it didn't appear that way half the time. He didn't always sound sincere IMO.

I would say that other than medical examiners and other personnel who handle the dead, there is no better expert on the smell of human decomp than a law enforcement officer. GA was one for a number of years and had been around the smell of dead bodies before.

I agree that the jury dismissed Vass' evidence. It is infuriating to me, especially in light of OJ and DNA, as you mentioned. DNA was a fairly new technology back then, and so it was dismissed as "junk" science, the way Vass' evidence was in this trial. I have a feeling this type of evidence will be more respected in the future, but the jury was unwilling or unable to piece its usefulness together with all of the other evidence.

 

[What'sThatClue]

Anybody got the addresses of the Pinella County jurors?

I hope this article is printed in their local papers and in their TV News reports.

Who knew it would take the DCF to get it even partially right?

Re: the article just posted in the Weekly News - No Discussion thread.

Yeah, well, a little late imo. :banghead:

 

[pinup]

This jury needed a few things :

1) A piece of paper with chloroform instructions in FCA's handwriting.
2) A video of FCA applying the chloroform and duct tape to Caylee's mouth and nose
3) A video of FCA dumping the body on Suburban Drive
4) A video of FCA leaving the Anthony home on 6/16

After getting all of those, they still probably would have tossed any testimony by a handwriting expert and disputed the date on the video tapes.

Don't forget:
5) A video of FCA confessing to the murder.

But since they devalue anything that is "circumstantial" evidence, they'd probably toss that out too and say that GA coerced her into a confession.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yeah, well, a little late imo. :banghead:

I am grateful for small mercies - this report will make at least a fair sized bump under the carpet with everything else the DT has swept under it.

I accept that it's too late, it's done, it's over - but no where in my house of rules does it say I need to be happy about it or forget about it. I want recognition, even if it's too late, that the responsibility for the death of this child lies solely with Casey Marie Anthony.

 

[com n sense]

I tended to go with murder as well, for a very long time, in fact - ever since I knew of Caylee's disappearance. It made the news in Australia as well

That a mother didn't report her 2 year old "missing" because she was... "using her own resources to find her" (words to that effect) made me sit up and listen straightaway, and I've been following the case ever since.

I'm not sure it was deliberate, though the chlroform (regardless of 1 search or 84) comes into it. Add shovel borrowed from eighbour to (according to Cindy Anthony) break down bamboo roots... in a house where Casey was no longer living... need I add more? Oh, OK - let's say she cared very much about her parents' lawn

How much did she care about her child? Or was the shovel for another purpose?

And how did the jury miss that one?

Sadly all of these jurors heard only one thing - the OS.
I will never understand how they all fell for it.:banghead:
Maybe it was the easy way for them. It wouldn't require them to have to work to reach a verdict.
The OS was full of red flags to me. I foolishly thought the jurors could never be swayed by any of it.
IMO the shovel was to bury Caylee with all the pets who died suspiciously.
IMO it was intentional. She was way to happy after Caylee's death.


Edited to add.... I think 2 jurors did see the truth in this trial. They voted murder one, but obviously were pretty easily swayed in their decision. I am awaiting the day when these 2 finally speak.

 

[grandmaj]

The words YOU and YOU don't know and YOU this and that are going to get you all in a heap of trouble. It generally sets off a problem.

Don't personalize please.

YOU can't know that. :nono:
Were YOU there? :nono:

BETTER way to phrase so that the post is not personalized.

It is difficult for us to know that is fact, since it didn't come up as evidence.
Having not been there when the jury deliberated, I think it is hard to know what they did.

 

[LambChop]

The words YOU and YOU don't know and YOU this and that are going to get you all in a heap of trouble. It generally sets off a problem.

Don't personalize please.

YOU can't know that. :nono:
Were YOU there? :nono:

BETTER way to phrase so that the post is not personalized.

It is difficult for us to know that is fact, since it didn't come up as evidence.
Having not been there when the jury deliberated, I think it is hard to know what they did.

All we know is that they looked forward to the "Dessert Lady" and they always had a supply of pretzels. lol

 

[logicalgirl]

Does anyone remember that silly statement of Baez's early in the case when he said something like - It will serve no purpose for my client to tell what she knows about Caylee being missing - or something along those lines?

At the time I remember thinking - what lawyer says that about an innocent client?

 

[RANCH]

Does anyone remember that silly statement of Baez's early in the case when he said something like - It will serve no purpose for my client to tell what she knows about Caylee being missing - or something along those lines?

At the time I remember thinking - what lawyer says that about an innocent client?

Ya. I remember something along those lines from Baez.I think it was an answer to the question "why won't your client help the police find her daughter" or something like that.

 

[adalphis]

(snipped for brevity)

I will never understand how they all fell for it.:banghead:.

That seems to be the general consesus... I couldn't believe my ears when I heard their verdict.

IMO the shovel was to bury Caylee with all the pets who died suspiciously.
IMO it was intentional. She was way to happy after Caylee's death.

Yep. IMO, she found it too much hard work (and maybe too dangerous in case someone saw her) so she opted for the easy way out - dump little Caylee's body. She didn't even bother to go very far... just down the road.

I'm not sure about the intentional bit, though. Not that she couldn't have done because of an emotional attachment to her daughter, because we all saw how attached she was after Caylee 'disappeared'... hot body contest... tattoo about beautiful life... let's PARTAY!!! But because I think she may have been annoyed with the attention Caylee demanded when all she really wanted to do was talk to Tony all night.

That doesn't explain the tape over the nose, though, does it?... :banghead: Unless she chloroformed Caylee to death and THEN applied the tape to stop fluids from being released (please forgive the imagery).

Anyway, it's done. All the theories in the world won't bring that sweet little girl back and won't see justice done, IMO.

Edited to add.... I think 2 jurors did see the truth in this trial. They voted murder one, but obviously were pretty easily swayed in their decision. I am awaiting the day when these 2 finally speak.

Add me to that.

 

[MissJames]

Your opinion is as valuable as the opinion of anyone on this board. My level of infuriation matches or exceeds yours as I live about 5 miles from the A's and have followed every inch of this trial for the last 3+ years.

But IMO, the State was not defeated by the defense (fools or not), even though that is what the official record will show. The jury cost the State this case, as I tend to believe most experts who before the verdict asserted that the State had presented a complete and convincing case. Lesson learned at the State Attorney's office that even when you have a strong circumstantial case, you need to pay strict attention to jury selection with regards to both venue and the candidates available to sit on the jury.

I agree with every word of this post. The State also needs to spell out what the jury instructions mean the way the defense did.

I continue to be baffled by the selection of some of the jurors. Several had experience with LE because they were arrested or had children and grandchildren who were ,including probation and prison time.
Several said they were against the death penalty or were unsure .
At least 2 said they wanted to be on the jury. Big honkin' red flags ,IMO.

 

[Caligram]

The DT kept this case in the media and out of the courtroom using every trick imaginable. There should have been penalties for every day that JB failed to produce the documents required of him. The incomplete expert witness information provided by the DT was deliberate, and resulted more delays. Delay after delay. A year late and a dollar short. The prosecution was forced to work under the delayed time frame, and JB did his best to derail scheduled testimonies/reports and due dates. JB also worked diligently to create friction for JA, and got away with it. I think the jury began to enjoy watching JB leaning on the podium, rocking back and forth on his heels, clicking his pen and of course, that damned smirk which never seemed to be noticed by HHJP. I believe that the DT's arrogant, confrontational treatment of LE witnesses was done intentionally to minimize the significance of their testimony. I think the jury "chose sides" and perhaps someone in the courtroom was employed by the DT to study the jury and report on what they observed, what caught the jury's attention. One would expect that a courtroom code of conduct of respect and common courtesy would prevail. I guess the jury felt more sympathy for the defendant, and her DT put on a show for them that appealed to their hidden immoral values.
IMO

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Does anyone remember that silly statement of Baez's early in the case when he said something like - It will serve no purpose for my client to tell what she knows about Caylee being missing - or something along those lines?

At the time I remember thinking - what lawyer says that about an innocent client?

Yes I remember it. The whole schtick then was - we the public are all stupid, we don't know whole story, he knows the truth and he will give us the aha moment at trial.

 

[lauriej]

The DT kept this case in the media and out of the courtroom using every trick imaginable. There should have been penalties for every day that JB failed to produce the documents required of him. The incomplete expert witness information provided by the DT was deliberate, and resulted more delays. Delay after delay. A year late and a dollar short. The prosecution was forced to work under the delayed time frame, and JB did his best to derail scheduled testimonies/reports and due dates. JB also worked diligently to create friction for JA, and got away with it. I think the jury began to enjoy watching JB leaning on the podium, rocking back and forth on his heels, clicking his pen and of course, that damned smirk which never seemed to be noticed by HHJP. I believe that the DT's arrogant, confrontational treatment of LE witnesses was done intentionally to minimize the significance of their testimony. I think the jury "chose sides" and perhaps someone in the courtroom was employed by the DT to study the jury and report on what they observed, what caught the jury's attention. One would expect that a courtroom code of conduct of respect and common courtesy would prevail. I guess the jury felt more sympathy for the defendant, and her DT put on a show for them that appealed to their hidden immoral values.
IMO

..of course the DT had people "reading the jury"-----we saw their overflow sitting in that front row inside the bar every day-------staring at them.

..add them to the "amy singer group"-----that were reading the blogs/forums 24 hours a day to get a feel for what "the public" ( that other jury) was feeling------and passing it along to dorothy sims and baez in real time----letting them know who to go after, who to lighten up on..

..no shock now that sims couldn't take her eyes off her laptop (well except to hang all over the defendant) and why baez was texting even @ the podium.

..alternate juror #16 ( pot smoker---lives "with the parentals" ) told the Today Show that he found baez "entertaining".

..the baez DRAMATICS! --from his OS to his CS was what captivated the jury (IMO).----all that "stuff" from the state in between-----just didn't match up to the razzle dazzle of the baez ----

"LIVE! ----from Orlando!!!-- It'sssss--The kc anthony Murder Trial!"

..and the jury bought it--

.."the state didn't give them enough"--- "there wasn't enough evidence"--- "if only we had other charges to go with"--- "there was no cause of death!"--- "it would make me a murderer too!" ----"the state didn't connect the dots"--- "couldn't get from 'here to there' with the chloroform"--"it seemed like she was a good mother"---- "george was questionable on the stand"---------------Not Guilty.

..but yes----the biggest liar in the room-----is a liar. ( we---the pinellas 12---will agree with LDB on that.) Guilty...liar X 4.

..very sad.

 

[cityslick]

I agree with every word of this post. The State also needs to spell out what the jury instructions mean the way the defense did.

I continue to be baffled by the selection of some of the jurors. Several had experience with LE because they were arrested or had children and grandchildren who were ,including probation and prison time.
Several said they were against the death penalty or were unsure .
At least 2 said they wanted to be on the jury. Big honkin' red flags ,IMO.

And yet nobody had a problem with the jurors with the exception of one of them before the trial. Maybe you did, but a vast majority did not (look up the jury selection threads after it was all said and done). In fact, there was high confidence due to the number of mothers and grandmothers on the jury.

Hindsight is 20/20. You'll never know how a jury will decide a case.

 

[logicalgirl]

And yet nobody had a problem with the jurors with the exception of one of them before the trial. Maybe you did, but a vast majority did not (look up the jury selection threads after it was all said and done). In fact, there was high confidence due to the number of mothers and grandmothers on the jury.

Hindsight is 20/20. You'll never know how a jury will decide a case.

I too watched the entire jury selection and kind of shrugged at some of the selections, but wrongly make the assumption that each individual would see the seriousness of this case and the information they would hear. I also assumed they would make a genuine effort to listen carefully, absorb ALL of the information, weigh and balance their objectives and instructions and come to an informed decision.

But one thing never occurred to me - that this jury wouldn't actually "decide on " any of the evidence. That no decisions would be made, that no evidence would be carefully weighed and balanced. That their primary effort would be to get the heck out of sequestration and go home. That no way would they stay to go through a penalty phase.

So you are right, we never know what they will decide on. But I had high expectations that were not fulfilled. I expected them to make decisions, which they chose not to make at all. It was apparently beyond their combined ability to follow directions and connect any dots. They wanted a TV style trial, but instead were unable to grasp the difference between speculation and hard evidence. I feel certain that in their own minds, they will forever question their own completely inane behaviour. And we will forever be left with one question about the crime and their lack of decision - the question will be "why"?

I'm just glad it isn't me who is forever for life wearing the T-Shirt that reads "I let a killer go free".