The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[kelian36]

You're right, but if I were cleaning up a trunk to get rid of any/all evidence related to a crime, I would actually want to get close to make sure it got vacuumed up. I wouldn't rely on an extension piece to vacuum all the nooks and crannies and just hope it cleaned it up.

And nothing says that wasn't done.

 

[beccalecca1]

Bbm/no one knows how long the trunk was aired out.

The chloroformed child may be a stretch for you, bit it's not to most others.

This is what we do know... the car was picked up before 3pm.

GA's statement said he went to work about 4pm that day. CA went to work after that.

She stayed at work for a "bit" and decided to go home looking for Casey.

She picked Casey up around 8pm from TL's house. In the meantime, LA was on his way to the house. When LA arrived, the car was in the driveway with everything opened up. At the very least, the car was aired out for approximately 5 hours.

 

[sacrablue]

Chloroform concentrations.
Treated drinking water....2-44 ppb
typical air we breath......0.02- 0.04 ppb
concentration to cause dizziness in humans ......900,000 ppb or 900 ppm

Not sure about the 8,000 to 10,000 ppm the Doc found. This would be off the charts! That's enough to knock out all the employes at the tow yard if inhaled.

 

[kelian36]

This is what we do know... the car was picked up before 3pm.

GA's statement said he went to work about 4pm that day. CA went to work after that.

She stayed at work for a "bit" and decided to go home looking for Casey.

She picked Casey up around 8pm from TL's house. In the meantime, LA was on his way to the house. When LA arrived, the car was in the driveway with everything opened up. At the very least, the car was aired out for approximately 5 hours.

When LE got to the house, the car was in the garage. He could smell the decomp in the house according to his first LE interview. The 5 hours of airing was before that?

 

[Who_What_When]

I’m quoting the thread of this post so that no one is confused as to the comments being made.

IMO, the author knows there will always be a dispute between experts from the State and the defense. It happens in any trial like this with circumstantial evidence. He talks about all of the factors pointing to FCA's consciousness of guilt as evidence the jury obviously overlooked.

I could have thrown out all of the experts' testimony and the testimony by the A's. To convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder, all I would have needed is :

1) FCA not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days
2) FCA's behavior during those 31 days
3) FCA lying to police
4) No 911 call to police suggesting an accident
5) Smell of death in the Sunfire
6) Bella Vita tattoo
7) Caylee found in woods with objects from Anthony home

All of that and a little common sense and FCA would be sitting in a 6x8 cell at Lowell CI right now.

I honestly am not trying to sound argumentative with this post so please do not take it that way. I am genuinely interested in seeing another side to this as I think this is where all the confusion is coming from regarding why the jury came to the decision that they did.

If you went on the 7 items you listed above, you say that you could find her guilty of felony murder and aggravated child abuse but I don’t see how as they don't meet the requirements that are needed to find her guilty of these two charges and I think that’s why the verdict came back the way it did. To find the person guilty of these two charges the SA has to prove the following elements (listed below) beyond a reasonable doubt:

Felony Murder:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of Aggravated Child Abuse.
or The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit Aggravated Child Abuse.

3. Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.

Now we obviously know that #1 is true but if you look at the 7 items you listed above how it can be said that #2 occurred and that #3 is true. I don’t see the proof of these two.

Aggravated Child Abuse:

1. Casey Marie Anthony knowingly or willfully committed child abuse upon Caylee Marie Anthony and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.

2. Caylee Marie Anthony was under the age of eighteen years. “Willfully” means intentionally, knowingly and purposely.

With this charge, none of the 7 items listed above meet the elements of #1 which is needed to convict her of this charge. That’s what is so frustrating, because I do believe that she is guilty of Child Abuse for not getting help or reporting her missing, but her actions don't meet the requirements to find her guilty of this charge.

My comments in blue...

Sure, my original post said I would use those (7) items and a little common sense. Common sense in that I would have connected all of those (7) items together to arrive at my decision.

I think items 1-4 & 6 are a given. That leaves #5 and #7.

See I don’t think 1-4 are a given when it comes to a murder charge. I guess this is where I see things differently. 1-4 only tell me that she is guilty of something but it doesn’t tell me that it was a murder.

Now I would agree with you that common sense would probably tell you that a normal person exhibiting these behaviors was likely guilty of something and that something would likely be murder but the way I see it we aren’t dealing with a normal person. I think this is what makes this case so unique and different than some of the other circumstantial cases. When using common sense and deciding on what a person would do in a situation I think we have to really look at the person that we’re basing our common sense on. What might be a common sense reaction to a normal person might be something different for someone like Casey. I think the normal things that one would expect someone to do may not be what she would do. With Casey’s history of lying, hiding things and pretending to live another life (her job, non-existent friends, etc) I don’t think it would be that uncommon for her to just cover it up (murder or accident) and to pretend it didn’t happen, just like she did with so many other things in her life (her pregnancy, job, etc). I don’t find it far fetched to believe that she might not call 911 in an accident. Now I’m not saying that this is true or that this is what happened but I do think that these variables raise reasonable doubt as I can't be sure exactly what happened.


As for #6, this wouldn’t be enough for me to say she was guilty of a crime. If she had stayed with the Nanny theory (during the trial) then I would have expected the jury to see this as evidence of guilt but since she admitted to knowing that Caylee died that day it could just as likely have been done in remembrance of her.

5) Smell of death in the Sunfire - who was driving the Sunfire and dumped it at the Amscot right next to a dumpster ? Who texted AH about the smell in her car ? Who left a bag of trash in the car to disguise the smell of the decomp ? Who never called her parents to tell them the car was at the Amscot ?

Here, I definitely agree with you. I do believe that Caylee was in the trunk of Casey’s car and I do believe that Casey was the one who put her in there, where I run into doubt is why. Again, if she was a normal person I would say that it’s very possible that she murdered Caylee and put her in the trunk, but because of her characteristics I can also say it’s very possible that she put her in the trunk because she didn’t know what to do with her after she died and she didn’t want to deal with the “problem”.

7) Caylee found in woods with items connected to Anthony home - if you choose to look at #7 by itself, one could concur that any of the Anthony's (x/c for maybe Lee) could have dumped Caylee in the woods.
I would have to exclude CA, due to the stress and emotion demonstrated in her 911 call. Now I'm left with FCA and GA ... to me, GA does not meet any of my other (6) list items and FCA had access to all of the items found at the crime scene and was the last person to drive the Sunfire. Placing duct tape over a child's mouth & nose is aggravated child abuse and Caylee died as a result leading me to felony murder.

Again, this only tells me that she wanted to get rid of the body not that she murdered her. It tells me that when she could no longer keep her in the car because of the smell she had to do something so she dumped her. I don’t find it hard to believe that she would be so callous as to just get rid of Caylee as it posed a problem for her and because she didn’t like to answer to anything or anyone and this would put a damper in her current lifestyle, she just found it easier to ignore what had happened. I don’t believe that GA or CA had ANYTHING to do with this and solely believe that Casey did this on her own.

As for the duct tape, this is where I had hoped that the SA would prove to me BARD that the duct tape was the cause of death. I still don’t know if this is true. Yes I read the autopsy report and I heard what both ME’s stated on the stand. Now it’s not that I didn’t believe Dr. G’s testimony, I did, but I also felt that her testimony was more from an emotional standpoint and not a scientific one. I really do believe that if I saw the photos that were presented in the trial that I might have had more confidence in saying that these were placed before death but with the conflicting testimonies I cannot say without a reasonable doubt that the duct tape wasn’t placed after she died or that the duct tape was moved by animals or the conditions of where the body was found.

Common sense tells me to look at the consciousness of guilt shown by FCA in my items 1,2,3,5,6 ( #5 b/c she dumped the car at Amscot and didn't bother to call her parents to come and get the car). Common sense tells me that #4 rules out an accident.

I guess this is difference between what someone sees as BARD and common sense.
As I said above, what common sense means to a normal person might not be the same to someone who obviously has some type of mental issues. This doesn’t mean I feel that the actions are excusable; I just think it means you have to look at every situation differently and determine what would be a common for that person/

I can tell you that from the beginning I felt that Casey was responsible for Caylee’s death but I never knew how or what happened. If Casey lead a normal life and at some point snapped and killed her child I would say I would agree with you that adding all the pieces together and using coming sense that one could logically say that she most likely murdered her daughter but because Casey did not lead a normal life and it was proven that she lied for years and covered up situations that she didn’t want to deal with (pregnancy, graduating, loss of job, etc) without knowing more or at least knowing the manner of her death I wouldn’t be able to say for certain that Casey murdered Caylee and that where I think the disconnection between the two sides come from.

Connecting those dots leaves me with only one person - the one who got off...

Thanks so much for your thorough response. It’s nice to be able to debate this without getting attacked for having a difference of opinion.

 

[Sustained]

Chloroform concentrations.
Treated drinking water....2-44 ppb
typical air we breath......0.02- 0.04 ppb
concentration to cause dizziness in humans ......900,000 ppb

So "unusually high levels of chloroform" could have been anywhere in the range of say 500 ppb to 900,000 ppb. According to your numbers, it would take 900,000 ppb to make someone dizzy. So if the number was 100,000 ppb, what Vass said about "shockingly" high levels would be true and yet not strong enough to knock a human out.

 

[Who_What_When]

The proof of #2 and #3 FOR ME, is based off the list Sustained provided:

1) FCA not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days
2) FCA's behavior during those 31 days

There is no reasonable excuse to avoid the people who would ultimately pressure her the most to produce her living, breathing daughter to them. An innocent person would not behave the way FCA did while knowing her child was dead and rotting. An innocent person would contact the authorities. FCA was determined to be competent to stand trial by 3 doctors. This means she knows the difference between right and wrong, has impulse control, and is not suffering from a mental disease.

3) FCA lying to police

You don't lie to the cops unless you are hiding something. Since her daughter was dead, and that is exactly what she was lying about, she was hiding the fact that her daughter was dead. Innocent people don't do that.

4) No 911 call to police suggesting an accident

To me, means there was no accident.

5) Smell of death in the Sunfire

She drove the car, made excuses for the smell, and ditched the car. I've never smelled a decomposing human body, but enough witnesses said it smelled like human decomp that I am convinced without a doubt that's what it was. Your car doesn't smell like a dead body unless at some point, a dead body was in your car. Her daughter was dead, and her car smelled like a dead body. There is no other way for me to spin this. I mean, I guess the question that comes up the most is why didn't everyone who came in contact with the car smell it? I don't know. But I don't need everyone to smell it to be convinced the smell was there.

6) Bella Vita tattoo

I feel like this one fits in to #2.

7) Caylee found in woods with objects from Anthony home

What are the chances that someone other than FCA would dump the body of her daughter with duct tape from their home, Caylee's blanket, in garbage bags matching those from her home, in a laundry bag that matches one from their home, in a spot in the woods where she and a childhood friend used to hang out? Zero, Zilch, Nada. Again, an innocent person doesn't try to hide a body.

Now, for me, I don't break all these things apart to come to my conclusion. It's her behavior + her lying about it + not reporting it + where Caylee was found + the items from the house + the smell of the car. I just don't believe, in my core, that someone reacting to an accidental death would do the things FCA did. But that's just me.

Generally speaking, if it was an accident or someone else was responsible, she would have reported it. She knew right from wrong.

Don't act like you're guilty, people won't think you're guilty. :twocents:

Thank you, Sustained, for providing the great list for me to jump off of, and Who_What_When for posing the question! :clap:

Entire post = MOO

I've pretty much expressed my thoughts on this in my above post to Sustained but I wanted to thank you for giving your opinion.

I would agree with you that an innocent person wouldn't do the things you mentioned above; however that's where my uncertainty comes in. I know that she isn't an innocent person in all of this and that she is guilty of something, I'm just not convinced that it's murder. I'm also not convinced it was an accident and because I'm not convinced of either if I was on the jury and following the elements that I noted in my previous post, I would have no choice but to find her not guilty of a felony murder and aggravated child abuse.

 

[sacrablue]

So "unusually high levels of chloroform" could have been anywhere in the range of say 500 ppb to 900,000 ppb. According to your numbers, it would take 900,000 ppb to make someone dizzy. So if the number was 100,000 ppb, what Vass said about "shockingly" high levels would be true and yet not strong enough to knock a human out.

That is correct but I think the amount in post before was in ppm which was probably a mistake. Let me look.

 

[sacrablue]

All of those people were in contact a month after, and we've heard over and over how volatile it is. That chart you posted, if I'm reading it correctly, says for anesthesia it takes a lot (8,000-10,000 ppm). But I also remember the testimony during the trial about the heavier than air stuff, and since what didn't dissipate into the air would quickly vaporize in that heat, the vapors would basically be settled into the lowest area( the tire well) after a short time. The residuals remained but enough gas to affect someone would be gone fairly quickly.

I wasn't talking about CA cleaning the trunk up a bit...FCA evidently used paper towels to wipe off some of the grave wax, so assuming she may have vacuumed a few flies, etc. after she dumped the body isn't such a leap, IMO

Yes, this was quoted as ppm so would need to double check this amount shown above. Remember 900 ppm will make you dizzy if inhaled. I was wrong, well not wrong but there is more. 900 ppm makes you dizzy but to knock you out for anesthetic value the concentration levels must reach 1,500 to 20,000 ppm. Anything over 40,000 ppm could kill a human.

 

[treeseeker]

While be happy then.:rocker:

Yes Dr. Vass was a bad witness.IMO Too much technical stuff and not near enough simple common explanations. Just like I did not like the woman(I forget her name) who claimed 100% of parents phone 911 when there child goes missing. What an amazing statement to make! There are many reason's why parents do not call 911. Including that you have killed your child. Which sadly happens everyday. The arrogance of the procession's expert witness was insufferable to me. And the jury.

I signed in so I could thank this post. I was pretty disappointed with the way the expert testimony presented in court. I feel I was led astray by the chloroform information provided by Dr. Vass before the trial. I can understand if the jury did also. Highly unlikely IMO that none of them heard about it prior to the trial.

 

[MissJames]

I think when I have time I'm going to have to re-listen to Vass' testimony because I think I got that backwards.

I thought Vass testified that the normal range of chloroform (not off the charts) was in the ppm range, but this amount was so massive it was in the ppb range. Was it the other way around?

One of my frustrations with the verdict is,not one juror asked to go back over ANY testimony. :banghead:

 

[Caligram]

One of my frustrations with the verdict is,not one juror asked to go back over ANY testimony. :banghead:

ITA. Not only did they not go back over any of the State's testimony and depos, they also did not review anything at all from the DT.
Maybe the testimony about the dead pets got to them. They felt sorry for the pets bagged and taped up.
The jury had so much evidence provided yet not one question was asked.
Kinda makes one think their minds had already been made up.
That obscene sexual molestation in the opening statement made by JB was really stuck in the minds of this jury. There should have been a mistrial called right then and there. Justice was laughed at and s-it upon. This will go down in history as how to beat a murder rap.

 

[MissJames]

This is what we do know... the car was picked up before 3pm.

GA's statement said he went to work about 4pm that day. CA went to work after that.

She stayed at work for a "bit" and decided to go home looking for Casey.

She picked Casey up around 8pm from TL's house. In the meantime, LA was on his way to the house. When LA arrived, the car was in the driveway with everything opened up. At the very least, the car was aired out for approximately 5 hours.

I believe LA said the car was in the garage and the garage door was closed.

 

[imagirlgeek]

While be happy then.:rocker:

Yes Dr. Vass was a bad witness.IMO Too much technical stuff and not near enough simple common explanations. Just like I did not like the woman(I forget her name) who claimed 100% of parents phone 911 when there child goes missing. What an amazing statement to make! There are many reason's why parents do not call 911. Including that you have killed your child. Which sadly happens everyday. The arrogance of the procession's expert witness was insufferable to me. And the jury.

BBM

It was Dr. Jan Garavaglia, and she said that 100% of accidental drowning deaths of children are immediately, upon finding the child, reported because the parent hopes the child can be saved. She didn't say anything about reporting when the child goes missing.

"All the accidental drownings, for instance, in my jurisdiction, we systematically went through those. 100%, EMS is called immediately when the child is found."

"We know in all of the cases that come through our morgue, that accidents are 100%, particularly in children, are reported unless there is a good reason not to."

I know this was a couple pages back, but I felt obligated to clarify it. I really enjoyed Dr. G's testimony. :square:

 

[Baznme]

While be happy then.:rocker:

Yes Dr. Vass was a bad witness.IMO Too much technical stuff and not near enough simple common explanations. Just like I did not like the woman(I forget her name) who claimed 100% of parents phone 911 when there child goes missing. What an amazing statement to make! There are many reason's why parents do not call 911. Including that you have killed your child. Which sadly happens everyday. The arrogance of the procession's expert witness was insufferable to me. And the jury.

BBM - I believe the woman may have been Dr. G. (medical examiner for Orange and either Osceola or Volusia Counties, Fla.)? IIRC, what she said was 100% of accidental drownings are reported by calling 911. Then she went on to explain about the duct tape on the skull. She was trying to point out that this was "no accident". That's why she deemed it "homicide". Is that the woman you're referring to?

Sorry, Imagirlgeek.........just saw your post after I hit the "post" key. Thanks. Your explanation is so much more detailed.

 

[Caligram]

Doctor Garavaglia is a highly skilled and respected medical examiner. She did a complete and thorough autopsy on what was left of Caylee Marie. It must have been heartbreaking for her to have to cut the duct tape embedded in Caylee Marie's once beautiful hair. She provided a thorough report on her findings.
Now we get to the DT doctor, the elderly gent who had some memory lapses while he was testifying. He had the audacity and arrogance to state that Dr. G did not open the skull, which he claimed was part of some documentation somewhere. He was wrong, he lied, and he also broke Caylee Marie's skull when he sawed it open, which was completely unnecessary. He also testified, that due to his many many years as a doctor, he knew more than Dr. G about everything. As to the duct tape holding the mandible, the duct tape that had been attached to Caylee Marie's face when she was still breathing...he had his own explanation for that too. "Somebody" took Caylee Marie's skull and reattached the mandible, and the plant growth held it in place or something. Or was it that he said the person who went and took Caylee Marie's skull also put the duct tape in it at that time. This was such bizarre testimony.
But, all you need are 12 people thinking that this old guy was credible in spite of his wandering thoughts on the witness stand.
He was a trustworthy old man, and GA was a dirty old man, at least according to JB. Oh, BTW, he charge$ enormou$ fat fee$ for te$tifying.

 

[Caligram]

Doctor Vass is a brilliant man who is highly regarded by his peers. Actually, as far as peers go, I doubt if anyone comes close to what he knows and has accomplished in the field of forensics. I believe his credentials are impeccable, and it was quite clear from the getgo that JB was unable to comprehend much of what was carefully explained by Dr. Vass. One way to determine the value of an expert witness who is on the stand is to observe how the opposing side reacts. JB tried to prevent that testimony, he was extremely worried that the smell of decomp from those tests would put the needle in FCA. JB was famous for uttering quantify and qualify to invalidate the results of the tests by Dr. Vass. JB's childish insults were derogatory but definitely heard by the jury.

 

[Schu7]

My what GREAT postings above here!

Still I believe we can agree that prosecution did not play to the jury with there technical witnesses. Too much technical information helped get OJ off. And sadly JA and gang did not learn that important lesson. Jurors are not there to get a PhD well doing jury duty.IMO

 

[Trapshooter]

My what GREAT postings above here!

Still I believe we can agree that prosecution did not play to the jury with there technical witnesses. Too much technical information helped get OJ off. And sadly JA and gang did not learn that important lesson. Jurors are not there to get a PhD well doing jury duty.IMO

Respectfully quoted by me:

IMO the Prosecution "dumbed down" the technical information as much as possible without losing the point of the presentation.

I do agree that jurors aren't there to get a PhD but one would think that jurors would use common sense to make such a decision on a death penalty case.

 

[Schu7]

Respectfully I say these jurors could not add 1 + 1 and get an answer. What a statement on the educational system.IMO