The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[pcrum12]

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

Did you miss the Defense CIC testimony and exhibits of Caylee and the pool and at the sliding door?

 

[yolorado]

Did you miss the Defense CIC testimony and exhibits of Caylee and the pool and at the sliding door?

How does that have anything to do with drowning? The picture at the door didn't even prove WHO opened the door or that it was Caylee in the picture? The photo didn't show the face. Some people think it was actually Casey. How do we know? The door didn't even appear to be open enough for the child to walk through. Talk about speculation and inference. The pictures of Caylee on the steps didn't show how she got on the steps, and even if she could climb the steps, doesn't mean she would. In fact there was testimony that she wouldn't and couldn't. Smoke and mirrors. Deflection. Distraction.

The defendant never said their was an accidental drowning. Baez said it, but in fact, KC said their was no accident and specifically that there was no drowning. Kids stand in front of open doors all over the world all the time. That's absolutely no proof of anything. There are no doubt countless pictures of children on their way into pools. How does that in any way prove drowning or even indicate it? On the other hand, there were statements from the beginning and testimony to the contrary indicating that access to the pool by Caylee wouldn't have been possible. Again, the defendant never asserted drowning, never explained a drowning, never summoned help for a drowned child, never buried a drowned child, never cremated a drowned child, never had a funeral or memorial service for a drowned child, never admitted to a drowned child under parental or police questioning. How on earth could any one come to a logical conclusion that this child was drowned based on what was presented at trial?! I'll never get it.

Plus, how can it not be legal malpractice to let one's client sit in jail for three years while also letting police and court costs and resources be spent and a DEATH PENALTY case roll on when a lawyer knows, but never says until trial, that his client asserts an accidental death, even though she never publically does it herself or ever explains anything to support the claim? How can a lawyer get away with that IF he believes there was an accident, or even if his client tell him there was an accident? How can he get away with not coming forward with that information, the discovery of which could possibly free his client and avoid her being tried for murder? Our system is so, so hosed.

 

[pcrum12]

Yes speculation and inference - which is exactly what the prosecution presented as well. The reason we all continue to debate this is that neither side presented proof of what happened only speculation and inference.

 

[logicalgirl]

With FL sunshine laws and Nancy Grace and her TH team going up down in out of every oriface of every piece of potential dirt in this case. I seriously doubt anything went quietly without media recognition.

Look at Roy Kronk. (IF) we are to believe he innocently came by the remains and was a good samaritan reporting it. He had his name, his reputation slandered. They delved into his past sexual experiences with his previous partners, his financials etc.

"THEY"???? THEY delved into his past?? You mean the Defense Team and their slimy investigator did? Nancy Grace didn't delve into anything unless the Defense Team brought it up.

I have never seen such personal slander by a Legal Team before and hope to never see it again. Disgraceful ethical conduct and was that necessary when they proved nothing?

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

Okay - just so I'm clear about what you are saying above. You are saying you agree with the verdict, you watched the trial, saw the evidence, but most of all you are enjoying "everyone's reactions" to the verdict?

So you are saying you aren't interested in expressing your opinions beyond this agreement, aren't interested in giving supporting information, but enjoy the reactions to your statements? Is this what you are saying?

 

[logicalgirl]

Did you miss the Defense CIC testimony and exhibits of Caylee and the pool and at the sliding door?

A toddler climbing a ladder being supported by her grandmother and a child reaching for a sliding door she is unable to open? A picture that had been stretched by photoshop to make the child appear taller than she actually was?

So? That had nothing to do with duct tape, triple bagged, decomp in trunks and scattered remains in a swamp land. Why go with the answer that has no logic or evidence to support it? I never understand taking the easy road...

 

[yolorado]

Yes speculation and inference - which is exactly what the prosecution presented as well. The reason we all continue to debate this is that neither side presented proof of what happened only speculation and inference.

It's fact, not speculation or inference that
1-KC never reported her child missing (something that murderers do.)
2-KCs never reported an accident or called 911 (something good mothers and innocent witnesses do when there is a real accident.)
3-KC's car smelled of death. (She and other's smelled it.)
4-Caylee's baby doll wasn't on Hopespring Drive. It was in KC's car.
5-A hair of Caylee's with death banding was in the trunk of KC's car.
6- KC lied and led police astray (something murders do.)
7-KC never buried or cremated her child (something good mothers do after an accident.)
8-KC's baby ended up discarded in the woods, left for nature and animals to ravage (something murders do.)
9-KC's only explanation for all this for three years was Zanny and Zanny doesn't exist.

 

[runsdeep]

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.

i know george stopped to get gas on the way home, but i dont recall if gas was put in it to get to the gas station.

 

[runsdeep]

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?

she ran out of gas a lot

 

[runsdeep]

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.

yet they agreed to be there for as much as 8 weeks!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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



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.

Caylee did not survive, whatever happened, and you are correct, no amount of debate can change that.

It seems that there is a little uncertainty between two of the statements. One statement was, that KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death (which is not a definitive statement), while the other statement was, her mother killed her (which is a definate statement).

If the circumstantial evidence proved BARD that KC murdered Caylee, then obviously KC was not just in some way responsible for Caylee's death, she was responsible for Caylee's death.

If the circumstantial evidence only proved BARD that KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death, then premeditated murder was not proven, and the verdict on count 1 is correct. If the circumstantial evidence BARD that proves KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death, but does not prove in what way KC was responsible, then the verdict in counts 2 and 3 is also correct. As one of the jurors stated, how can you convict someone of a crime, when there is no evidence BARD as to what the crime was.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[MissJames]

I think the backgrounds of several of the jurors may have played a role in the verdict.

Maybe I'm off base,but it seems to me there is a dislike or a distrust of LE and/or the SA's often associated to agreeing with NG.

We know that several of the jurors have been arrested or have family members who have been arrested . At least one had a son and grandson serve prison time. Depending on their experience or their perceptions ,they may have inserted reasons of their own to doubt LE and shared that with the other jurors.

 

[MissJames]

i know george stopped to get gas on the way home, but i dont recall if gas was put in it to get to the gas station.

I don't recall George stopping to get gas .He took a can of gas to the towyard. It was raining on the way home and he said he had to keep the window down and his head stuck out on the way home because of the stench.

 

[MissJames]

It's fact, not speculation or inference that
1-KC never reported her child missing (something that murderers do.)
2-KCs never reported an accident or called 911 (something good mothers and innocent witnesses do when there is a real accident.)
3-KC's car smelled of death. (She and other's smelled it.)
4-Caylee's baby doll wasn't on Hopespring Drive. It was in KC's car.
5-A hair of Caylee's with death banding was in the trunk of KC's car.
6- KC lied and led police astray (something murders do.)
7-KC never buried or cremated her child (something good mothers do after an accident.)
8-KC's baby ended up discarded in the woods, left for nature and animals to ravage (something murders do.)
9-KC's only explanation for all this for three years was Zanny and Zanny doesn't exist.

BBM
That is true to this day.
The OS was a THEORY of the DT's and was referred to as a theory by all parties ,including the DT ,during the sidebars.

 

[2goldfish]

Caylee did not survive, whatever happened, and you are correct, no amount of debate can change that.

It seems that there is a little uncertainty between two of the statements. One statement was, that KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death (which is not a definitive statement), while the other statement was, her mother killed her (which is a definate statement).

If the circumstantial evidence proved BARD that KC murdered Caylee, then obviously KC was not just in some way responsible for Caylee's death, she was responsible for Caylee's death.

If the circumstantial evidence only proved BARD that KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death, then premeditated murder was not proven, and the verdict on count 1 is correct. If the circumstantial evidence BARD that proves KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death, but does not prove in what way KC was responsible, then the verdict in counts 2 and 3 is also correct. As one of the jurors stated, how can you convict someone of a crime, when there is no evidence BARD as to what the crime was.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

my bolding :blowkiss:

but this is just not correct. if the evidence proved BARD that offender anthony was responsible for the death of caylee, then the verdict for counts 2 and 3 should NOT be NG. that's the whole point. I agree with you up til then. (mind, I believe the evidence shows BARD that OCA murdered her daughter).

this makes me the saddest of all - that hiding a crime until there was almost nothing left paid off in this case. plenty of times there isnt enough left of the victim to know the cause of death but so long as the manner of death is quite clear, let alone all the other evidence....most people dont get away with this.

I maintain and will until the day I die that were OCA a male, she would be on DR.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

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



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.

I have no problem with circumstantial evidence. I don't require DIRECT evidence to believe someone is guilty. However, I do require a story that tells me beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder actually occurred. I didn't get that here. I just didn't. I don't know what happened to Caylee except that a sweet little girl is dead.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

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.

Brilliant post. Thank you. The scenarios that have been concocted around the jury have been astounding and without a shred of evidence.

 

[logicalgirl]

Brilliant post. Thank you. The scenarios that have been concocted around the jury have been astounding and without a shred of evidence.

I may believe your comments if no one on the jury had made a public statement. Unfortunately two jurors and one alternate have.

There's your trouble, right there. All three by their individual comments indicated that comprehending their jury instructions or the evidence was beyond their capabilities or will.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

my bolding :blowkiss:

but this is just not correct. if the evidence proved BARD that offender anthony was responsible for the death of caylee, then the verdict for counts 2 and 3 should NOT be NG. that's the whole point. I agree with you up til then. (mind, I believe the evidence shows BARD that OCA murdered her daughter).

this makes me the saddest of all - that hiding a crime until there was almost nothing left paid off in this case. plenty of times there isnt enough left of the victim to know the cause of death but so long as the manner of death is quite clear, let alone all the other evidence....most people dont get away with this.

I maintain and will until the day I die that were OCA a male, she would be on DR.

I stated...If the circumstantial evidence BARD that proves KC was in some way responsible for Caylee's death, but does not prove in what way KC was responsible, then the verdict in counts 2 and 3 is also correct.

responsding statement....if the evidence proved BARD that offender anthony was responsible for the death of caylee, then the verdict for counts 2 and 3 should NOT be NG.

I agree with the responding statement as written, however, the omission of IN SOME WAY from my statement changes the meaning of my statement.

I just think that KC being responsible IN SOME WAY is vague. The state needs to be specific as to how she was responsible as stated in the charges to get a guilty verdict. Vague equals reasonable doubt.

The jury stated they believed she was in some way responsible, but since the state did not prove in what way she was responsible they had to find the not guilty verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[logicalgirl]

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

I'm not familiar with "acandyrose" as a site, but only with ours and thehinkymeter - are you able to provide more information on this site?