The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[Sustained]

IMO, the problem with Casey's behavior showing her consciousness of guilt during those 31 days is that the State NEVER presented her behavior as consciousness of guilt. According to the State, she acted the way she did because it was her reason for killing Caylee. According to the defense, she was grieving by denying Caylee was dead.

IMO, the defense proved beyond a reasonable doubt that George and Cindy denied the reality of the pg. Cindy denied that there was no Zany until 6 weeks before trial.

IMO, if the State has used her behavior as consciousness of guilt, it would have been more believable than as motive.

OK, I personally don't think partying, setting up events at Club Fusion, and hanging out with your boyfriends WITHOUT your little girl meets my qualifications for "grieving" ... give me a break. Also, she gets a Bella Vita tattoo AFTER Caylee went missing. To me, this displays consciousness of guilt on its' own. FCA was rid of the ball & chain name Caylee that was dragging her social life down. Why didn't she get the tattoo after Caylee was born and before she was murdered ?

But let's go ahead and remove #2 from my criteria. Any juror willing to do a deep dive would have inferred consciousness of guilt from a) not reporting your child missing for 31 days, and b) lying to the police.

As far as CA believing Zanny was still the culprit up until 6 months before the trial ... IMO, that is something CA told the media to deflect attention away from the princess. I think that CA knew that FCA had done away with Caylee on 7/16/08.

 

[TorisMom003]

I completely disagree with the verdict.

What parent when being interviewed by police about their "missing" child will refuse that an accident happened, over and over and over by the way, and instead claim that a non-existant nanny kidnapped their child while they were at a job that also didn't exist then sit in jail for 3 years before finally deciding to say that the "missing" child really did die in an accidental drowning and only admit that on the first day of their 1st degree murder charges trial UNLESS the child was in fact murdered and that parent had committed the murder?

There is no reason whatsoever for a parent to claim repeatedly that there was no accident at all when the police have given that parent an "out" if it was true. There are clear signs that it was in fact murder and not an accidental drowning. Unfortunately the jury in this case did not bother to take the time to examine the evidence, ask questions, re-listen to testimony, etc. The grandparents of the child also decided to ignore the evidence as their daughter meant more to them than justice for their dead granddaughter.

If Caylee had accidentally drowned in June of 2008 as has been claimed by the defense team and 911 had not been called BUT when asked where Caylee was in July of 2008 if KC had replied that she had died in an accidental drowning and then taken/told the police where Caylee was, would she have been arrested in the first place? She was originally arrested for lying to police, child endangerment and whatever else it was. So if KC had "told the truth" about what had happened to Caylee at that time in July 2008 would she have been arrested? Would there have been a trial? Would her mother have lied on the stand?

OR, would the police look at the evidence with Caylee at the dump site and realized that there is no way in heck that a 2 1/2 child that had accidentally drowned would have duct tape across her mouth and nose, triple bagged and left in a swampy area to rot? Would the police and the State then have enough (more than enough) evidence against the mother to charge her with 1st degree murder and get a conviction that then was punishable by death?

There is a reason that KC refused to tell police, Cindy, George, Lee, TES, LP and everyone else where Caylee was. That reason was not so that KC would not be arrested, she was arrested anyway for NOT telling the truth. That reason was so that Caylee would not be found so that KC could get away with murder, which IMO she did.

Now not only will the mother (she and her lawyers hope) make lots of money off of her dead daughter, the grandparents (they and their lawyer hope) will make lots of money off of their dead granddaughter. Heck, they all get free vacations off of the back of Caylee as well. Win, win, win for them and a huge lose for Caylee.

MOO

 

[Amity]

I understand what Dr. G said, but I disagree with it. The only thing the duct tape was adhered to was the hair mat. The hair mat had slipped down to the base of the skull, so where did it originate? Possibly the top of the skull? Well, why would there be tape stuck to the hair at the top of the skull? Perhaps the tape was never across the nose/mouth area, but was near the open end of the garbage bag and just got stuck to her hair. IMO of course. It's hard to figure it out without seeing the pictures, but I don't want to see the pictures either.

Above Respectfully Snipped for Space

I don't disagree with Dr. G. because not having seen the actual photos with the hair mat attached I can't form a 100% positive conclusion.
But I will say......
During the PTs presentation of the skull, hair mat, duct tape, I tried so hard to visualize what PT was describing and I could not, no matter how hard I tried, bring that hair mat/duct tape/mandible visual into focus in my mind.

For those of us who aren't grossed out by such photos, I think seeing those photos, no matter what side of the fence we are on, would have made a huge difference in the type and amount of argument/disagreement that goes on about the verdict. ie; Jurors didn't bother vs. Jurors voted the only way they could according to the instructions.

During the part of the trial where the PT discussed the skull, hair mat, duct tape, mandible, I searched the house in the evenings to find something, anything that could come close to replicating what the jurors were seeing.
(In our home, from the time the kids were little, we taught them not to say the word "Never" or the words "I can't" until they exhausted every avenue, tried their best.)
I was determined to find something that would give me somewhat of a visual of the hair mat, etc.

I got a large pillar candle......8" tall, 3" diameter.
Got the shortest hair extension that I don't use.
Cut some duct tape pieces to the approx. length according to the testimony.
Placed the hair extension on the candle (candle representing the skull) then placed the duct tape to secure the hair extension to the candle.
Set the candle/hair on a 9" ceramic dinner plate outside in the normal elements.
Unusual weather in S. Calif....... 80+ degrees one day and rain the next.

In the heat, the candle melted, wax melting a bit faster at the top of the candle, much like skin would during decomp.
The duct tape curled along the top length edge, slid down the candle and left ....well, it looked like a nest at the base of the candle.

This is in no way scientific, it's rather a kindergarten-level experiment (Don't laugh.....I needed to know ! ).
But it proved to me that the duct tape COULD, I say COULD have been on or near the face but not necessarily on the nose and mouth area.

 

[TorisMom003]

Amity, interesting test that you did. However, did you remember to account for the nose that would help to hold up the duct tape in place? Not to mention that skin is going to be easier for duct tape to stick to than a waxy candle. And if the duct tape was not on Caylee's nose and mouth, then why were three pieces placed on or near her face? Three pieces that were not exactly on top of one another? In other words they overlapped some while covering a larger area.

 

[sacrablue]

Nice try with that experiment. There are a couple of things that suggested the duct tape was put completely around the child's head. I saw a couple of pics as well. One showed the skull in the debris 'nest' with duct tape across the face. One pic showed the duct tape loop after removed from skull. I do not think the prosecution needed to show the pretend look of tape on Caylee. This was only accurate in showing the width of ducrt tape could have covered mouth and nose.

 

[sacrablue]

The toughest thing to do would be pulling the tape off the roll, Wrapping the tape around a head would not be very difficult. I would hope the head was still and not fighting restraint. If the head and hair was wet from water or decomp, it would be easier to wipe area off with towel cloth. The tape will stick to itself very well as long as it it's kept somewhat dry. The hair of child would tend to 'nest' or cling together and stay in place. How much the hair was adhered to tape I do not know if any but that is another story. In that situation there are many things in play that could allow something to stick together or to something foreign.

 

[kelian36]

There was no logic.

JB went into great detail telling the jurors what happened...right down to yelling 'look what you did, your mother will never forgive you and you'll spend the rest of your life in freak'n jail'. Then Casey cried and cried and cried and cried and cried and cried. Now that alone is unreasonable. The jury was shown pictures of the A's house and they could see how close those houses were to each other. The last thing a former LE would do is hold a dead body he planned to conceal while yelling. It would only take one neighbor to hear the yelling and come over to help, especially with FCA crying so much.

BBM- JB completely turned the story around and said they'll never know what happened to her. Huh? He already told them exactly what happened. I can't believe one juror didn't pick up on that. FCA is his client and she is sitting right there. She even wrote down exactly what happened and LDB told them they could read her entire written statement but the jury didn't bother.

IMO

Excellent post Jon!
bbm/The statement and many other docs should have been reviewed by the jurors imo.

 

[kelian36]

beccalecca,
Exactly what ARE you arguing then? OR are you debating>...................

The jurors made a rush to judgement.
10 flipping hours to reach the verdict.
They reviewed NO docs, testimony or evidence.
They listened to no interviews.

They wanted to go home.
They were not for all intent and purposes the brightest bulbs in the pack. imo

Argue it day after day after day, the end will always be the same....
A murdering birth person killed her toddler and got away with it.

Nothing to be proud of and nothing to defend imo.

 

[LinTX]

My comments in red and following quoted text:

Interesting article.

The only thing I have to wonder though is why the author didn't see the dispute in the evidence with expert witnesses stating 2 completely different facts about most of the evidence.

If the experts agreed on most, if not all of the evidence (chloroform, duct tape, decomposition fluids in the trunk, entomology, etc), then I'm sure the case would've been pretty simple to decide. But, instead you had experts arguing that the chloroform was either extremely high levels (although this is not a quantitative study) or levels that equate to cleaning products (which I believe was from a quantitative study).

First of all, if you're talking about Dr. Vass and the FBI guy, Dr. Rickenbach, both used headspace-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS) on the carpet evidence, both were qualitative studies. Most of Dr. Vass' testimony was on the trunk air, but he did use a pc. of carpet sample for his GC-MS chloroform/carpet analysis. I know Baez tried to make GC-MS/qualitative sound some 'lesser' way to analyze the chemicals , but that is simply not true. It's what the EPA & OSHA require for air safety around industrial plants or other industries that use or produce volatile chemicals, testing at airports, hospitals, etc.. The quantitative/qualitative thing was a JB trick that apparently worked well for FCA and her team, but that doesn't make it true. Both Dr. Vass and Dr. Rickenbach were asked to analyze what was in the samples, not determine how much, and that's what they did. Even so, Dr. Vass did try to do a quantitative analysis, but was unable to because "the chloroform was so massive that we could not achieve that" (whatever that means).

Also, you state as fact very common misinterpretation of Dr. Rickenbach's testimony during JB's cross...JA tried to clear it up on re-direct but is rarely noted when this subject comes up. Dr. R. *never* said the levels were equal to cleaning products and never indicated they were anything other than surprising - this said in being surprised any levels were found in the sample shipped in cardboard. His testimony was that the levels were low as compared to the positive control he used as a part of GC-MS testing (100ppm liquid chloroform). That control is is used to verify that the equipment is accurately reading chloroform by using a known chloroform sample (the control) with it after testing evidence. Levels during this control procedure have nothing at all to do with the levels found in the actual evidence. JB's questions to him about that were carefully phrased as to whether the residuals found were ""significantly lower than than your positive control" and Dr. R. had to say yes. His testimony re: levels in cleaning products was also clarified in JA's redirect where Dr. R. stated he only meant that statement in reference to a qualitative study- IOW, that chloroform residuals in cleaning products can be found in a qualitative study just as they were found in the evidence he tested. He was not saying the levels found in this evidence were comparable to those found in cleaning products. Experts arguing the tape was adhered to the mouth/nose before decomp, or just happened to fall there in the process of weather and animal activity. Not only 'fell there' but fell so forcefully that it held the mandible in place during flooding, dismemberment and possibly RK's prodding (although I don't believe that happened)? That one seems a no brainer to me, but only MO. Experts arguing if the chemicals in the trunk matched decomposition fluids, or the chemicals could be related to the other food items in the trunk. No food items in the trunk, although back when that info was believed to be true, both the FBI and Dr. Vass experimented with pizza and found it only dried out and didn't attract a single maggot. Experts arguing that the fact there were no first colonizers in the trunk meant that the body had been stored somewhere else previously/first colonizers were secluded from the body somehow, or that the body was never in the trunk of Casey's car meaning there wasn't a link to her having anything to do with bringing Caylee there. Or maybe most of the early colonizers left the trunk when FCA opened it, retrieved the body and threw it in the swamp. Most of them simply remained with the body and were washed away during flooding? Remember, that trunk was opened at least once after the body was placed there, and it's possible it was also opened a short time afterward and the truck vacuumed or brushed out then. IIRC one expert said they thought it was probably not there after the 3rd day of decomp, so they would have been active during that time.

IMO (bolded and italicized for a purpose), if you walked into trial with the idea that she was probably guilty or was guilty, and were waiting for the Guilty verdict for the whole 6 weeks the trial took; it would be easy to see this evidence pointing directly to her. If you walked into the trial without knowing a lot of details on the case, unsure of what really happened, and thought she could be innocent; this evidence would be extremely faulty. Again MOO

I knew almost nothing about this case until June 1st when I visited in Orlando for a week...I had no preconceived notions about guilt, just watched trial testimony while there and found the online streaming once I came home. It was very easy for me to see the evidence point to FCA-and only FCA- but then I paid close attention to the evidence presented and was not impressed at all with DT, especially JB. It was only after I had formed an opinion based on what I saw that I started looking into recorded interviews, depositions, etc. which have only strengthened my opinion of both her guilt and the deceptive and IMO unethical behaviors of her DT.

 

[beccalecca1]

I knew almost nothing about this case until June 1st when I visited in Orlando for a week...I had no preconceived notions about guilt, just watched trial testimony while there and found the online streaming once I came home. It was very easy for me to see the evidence point to FCA-and only FCA- but then I paid close attention to the evidence presented and was not impressed at all with DT, especially JB. It was only after I had formed an opinion based on what I saw that I started looking into recorded interviews, depositions, etc. which have only strengthened my opinion of both her guilt and the deceptive and IMO unethical behaviors of her DT.

I have to ask, if the chloroform in the drunk was "off the charts", how did SB not become affected when the trunk was opened and he reached in to retrieve the garbage bag? How was GA able to drive the car home without being knocked out? How was CA able to be in and out of the car "cleaning" it without being affected?

I will buy that possibly CA did more to the car then just spray febreeze. The car was aired out for hours and I have a hard time believing that throughout all of that chloroform magically stayed in the trunk and didn't dissipate in the air. I could believe that CA dumped bleach in the trunk (perhaps the whitish stain?) and closed it up trying to kill whatever germs/bacteria that was living in it. But, to believe that Casey chloroformed her daughter and the proof is in the trunk is just a hard stretch for me. Along with the "off the charts" amounts of chloroform.

 

[Sustained]

I have to ask, if the chloroform in the drunk was "off the charts", how did SB not become affected when the trunk was opened and he reached in to retrieve the garbage bag? How was GA able to drive the car home without being knocked out? How was CA able to be in and out of the car "cleaning" it without being affected?

I will buy that possibly CA did more to the car then just spray febreeze. The car was aired out for hours and I have a hard time believing that throughout all of that chloroform magically stayed in the trunk and didn't dissipate in the air. I could believe that CA dumped bleach in the trunk (perhaps the whitish stain?) and closed it up trying to kill whatever germs/bacteria that was living in it. But, to believe that Casey chloroformed her daughter and the proof is in the trunk is just a hard stretch for me. Along with the "off the charts" amounts of chloroform.

Chloroform is heavier than air and may cause asphyxiation in enclosed, poorly ventilated, or low-lying areas.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rma/resourcenotebook/Chemicals/chloroform.pdf

I'm not a chemist, but if indeed chloroform is heavier than air, it would not rise out of the trunk when SB opened it or when CA cleaned the car with Febreze. Chloroform apparently smells "sweet" and I don't remember any testimony from SB/CA about what they smelled in the trunk, other than the decomp. And IMO, it is possible that the decomp smell was so overwhelming, it masked the smell of the chloroform.

 

[beccalecca1]

Chloroform is heavier than air and may cause asphyxiation in enclosed, poorly ventilated, or low-lying areas.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rma/resourcenotebook/Chemicals/chloroform.pdf

I'm not a chemist, but if indeed chloroform is heavier than air, it would not rise out of the trunk when SB opened it or when CA cleaned the car with Febreze. Chloroform apparently smells "sweet" and I don't remember any testimony from SB/CA about what they smelled in the trunk, other than the decomp. And IMO, it is possible that the decomp smell was so overwhelming, it masked the smell of the chloroform.

Ok... but if someone vacuumed the trunk, wouldn't that person have been affected? I'm not sure if the assumption is GA or CA vacuumed, but either way.... to clean up all the flies, this person would have to get face down in the trunk.

 

[Sustained]

Ok... but if someone vacuumed the trunk, wouldn't that person have been affected? I'm not sure if the assumption is GA or CA vacuumed, but either way.... to clean up all the flies, this person would have to get face down in the trunk.

You would think so, but I don't know if CA vacuumed the trunk. I suspect that she didn't if the smell of the trunk was overwhelming.

 

[Sustained]

You would think so, but I don't know if CA vacuumed the trunk. I suspect that she didn't if the smell of the trunk was overwhelming.

Found CA's trial testimony - she did not vacuum the trunk.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6588416&postcount=17"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies[/ame]

 

[sacrablue]

You would think so, but I don't know if CA vacuumed the trunk. I suspect that she didn't if the smell of the trunk was overwhelming.

I bet George Told Cindy to do everything she could to clean that car. Then they were going to have to wait out Casey to find out what is going on. Trust me , George knew exactly what was going on with the car. The smell is unmistakable esp to someone who has experience. A no brainer.

 

[beccalecca1]

Found CA's trial testimony - she did not vacuum the trunk.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies

Well, according to trial testimony no one vacuumed the trunk:crazy:

But, since there was no evidence of 1st colonizers in the trunk, the suspicion is someone cleaned/vacuumed the trunk. And, IMO, if someone was vacuuming the trunk of all the fly carcasses, they would have to get into the trunk pretty much to get rid of all evidence. In that aspect, this person should suffer from some of the symptoms described, right?

 

[pcrum12]

I realize it's been weeks since the Not Guilty verdict and I am still trying to wrap my mind around WHY??? Why??? Why???

A precious, innocent baby is dead! She was not reported missing by her mother, the "caregiver". Contrary to the jury's comment that they couldn't decide who the caregiver was, it was the MOTHER!!!! The baby being missing for 31 days without being reported missing spells T.R.O.U.B.L.E. to me! The "mother" out "slutting" around, drinking, boozing, screwing & tattooing (per MN) without showing any grief or remorse spoke volumes to me. Her WTF attitude on her first jail call to home spoke volumes also. IMO, she is guilty as sin and will ultimately pay for her sin. That is the only solace I have right now.

I live in a rural area, our county's population is around 45,000 people. I never knew other people in my area was watching this case or even remotely interested in it but I was pleasantly surprised. Some sweet soul paid for a billboard that reads "JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE Please boycott all movie & book deals offered to Casey Anthony" I was beyond proud when my friend told me about the billboard!!! I will post a picture of it when I get up that way to take a picture. So even in my little neck of the woods, Caylee Marie has touched other hearts as she touched mine.

Rest in peace sweet baby girl. Your justice will come. From Shawshank Redemption...."His judgement cometh and that right soon".

(Post broken down into 1 thru 4 for clarity.)

The defense obviously planted reasonable doubt, because 3+ weeks have gone by and we still have people hashing out what the evidence/experts did or didn't prove.

(1) Chloroform: The States witness was reporting on chloroform in the trunk's AIR, while the DT compared levels ON the carpet (apples and oranges).

(2) Duct-tape - according to Dr G the tape had to be placed before decomposition began, otherwise it would not have held the mandible in place. The jury really believed that just by chance that duct tape ended up wrapped across Caylee's little face and into her hair? Or more unbelievable, someone came across the remains, found a hair mat, found the skull, found the mandible, had access to GA's tape (aged it to look like it had been in the swamp for 6 months) and set the stage to make it look like Caylee had been duct tapped all along.

(3) There was no spoiled food in the trunk, that theory was debunked!

(4) The trunk had been cleaned by CA and probably by CFCA, in an attempt to alleviate the horrible smell. Wouldn't it make sense that a vacuum may have been used (the kind you drop a couple quarters in)? As lazy as I believe CFCA is, I also believe she would have attempted to fix this little problem before she just abandoned the car completely.

Re BBM

Having followed this case from Day 31 (like many here), reading, studying, learning along the way about all of the discovery, I expected the jury to do the same. That was their "job", to understand what the state and the DT laid out for them, decide what made sense from what didn't make sense and connect the dots. We know they didn't do this. They didn't even attempt to do this!

After a lot of reflection I believe this trial (with this jury) could have been completed in 4 days tops - Opening Statements, Closing Statements (with a few sidebars thrown in for good measure), then 10 hours for deliberations. They could have skipped all the witnesses, evidence and Juror instructions completely because based on their own statements they disregarded everything anyway!

I still have not reconciled in my own mind how this happened. Not the verdict, that I get, the Pinellas 12 wanted the trial to be over, they wanted to go home (or on their cruises/Disney vaca's) What I don't get is how 12 people could make the decision to blow off their duty to the VICTIM, without any attempt to actually deliberate, discuss or inspect the evidence for themselves. Before I could find someone NG I would have to look at everything just to be sure I hadn't missed something important, just exactly the same way I would before handing down a GUILTY verdict. The defendant and the VICTIM deserve no less.

Found CA's trial testimony - she did not vacuum the trunk.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cindy Anthony's testimonies

So she says...

 

[Schu7]

Well, according to trial testimony no one vacuumed the trunk:crazy:

The LE investigators plainly said it was the cleanest car trunk they had ever seen. A Cindy trait there. Certainly not a Casey trait.

 

[Sustained]

Well, according to trial testimony no one vacuumed the trunk:crazy:

But, since there was no evidence of 1st colonizers in the trunk, the suspicion is someone cleaned/vacuumed the trunk. And, IMO, if someone was vacuuming the trunk of all the fly carcasses, they would have to get into the trunk pretty much to get rid of all evidence. In that aspect, this person should suffer from some of the symptoms described, right?

This person could very well have been FCA and since she ain't talking, we'll never know. If I was in her shoes, I think I would have tried to clean the car after dumping the body.

 

[beccalecca1]

The LE investigators plainly said it was the cleanest car trunk they had ever seen. A Cindy trait there. Certainly not a Casey trait.

Ok, again I ask why didn't Cindy "pass out" at the very least from the off the charts chloroform?