The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[Sustained]

Perhaps because they understood Furton and didn't understand Vass? I don't believe that's unethical, especially given that Furton's tests were done in a lab, not a research facility. Furton's tests were tried and true, Vass was up and coming.

I don't believe it is unethical one bit to believe one expert over the other, given you don't understand one of them. That is what the jury is instructed to do... right?

Dr. Vass has been studying the chemical decomposition of bodies at the Body Farm for 15 years ... hardly up and coming. Just b/c the air test was 1st introduced at this trial doesn't make it unusable ... there was obviously a first trial for DNA at some point. How many years has Furton been studying decomposing bodies in aerobic and anaerobic settings ? Sure, he confused the jury by testifying that chloroform can be found in drinking water, butter & cheese and they bought it ...

To me, it's kind of like having the State use a meteorological expert to validate that it snowed a certain night, even though by morning the snow had melted. The Defense would counter with someone that took a 1-day weather class who would say it didn't snow on that particular night b/c there was no snow on the ground when they woke up. And then the jury would toss out the weather expert b/c they didn't understand isobars, isotherms, etc.

To me, it doesn't say a lot about the combined intelligence of the jury if they weren't willing to further examine testimony like what was given by Dr. Vass and relied on someone with far less experience in the isolation of chemical compounds emitted by a human body during decomposition when making their decision.

 

[jon_burrows]

Did they ever ask for testimony to be repeated back? They most certainly could ask the Court for clarification of the jury instructions.

The jury didn't have any problems sending a note to the judge asking to watch a sporting event. When it came to evidence---not so much interest.

IMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

happened "accidently" as in "not intentionally" similar to if the jury had believed Casey OD'd Caylee on the chloroform. While that would have essentially been an "accident" on Casey's part, as she had not intended to kill her, it is not an "accident" for legal purposes and would have been aggravated child abuse.

There is a difference between an "accident" and what is treated as an accident for purposes of legal responsibility. So, yes, deaths could be accidental and yet a person could still be liable.

Zimring says "Sometimes it's an accident" when a death of somebody that young goes unreported ... I'd like to see the real life examples on which Zimring is basing his statement and what the parent was doing after the child's unreported death.

 

[Sustained]

The jury didn't have any problems sending a note to the judge asking to watch a sporting event. When it came to evidence---not so much interest.

IMO

Or for more cakes and pies from the Dessert Lady ...

 

[Boytwnmom]

since the Foreman and the members who've spoken were clearly completely erroneous in what they believed and likely shared with their fellow jurors. The Foreman is particularly aggravating as most of what he says is the complete opposite of what the law is and yet he sounds quite convinced of his own keen legal knowledge.

When he was telling them how the law demanded they ignore the 31 days, that they couldn't convict if they didn't know exactly how, when and where she died etc it would have been preferable to have the 6 jury members who wanted to vote her guilty of something to have asked the judge for clarification instead of taking the gym teachers word for it. It's no wonder they've all decided to shut up now.

I'm curious about this too when some get angry that the jury didn't ask for 'clarification'. Outside of reading the transcripts (which if I'm not mistaken they already had access too), what else could they do to better understand Dr. Vass' testimony? You either understand it or you don't.

 

[Baznme]

From reading the posts today, seeing the disagreement regarding the expert testimonies, although refuted between the DT and PT, occurred to me that this must have been what it was like in the jury room. Discussion amongst the jurors as to whether or not Dr. Vass or Dr. Furton's data was accurate. The air samples were just the beginning of the dismissal of hard evidence. If you can't see the decomp in the trunk of the car, it isn't there, yet if you can "envision" sexual abuse inflicted on KC, it must be so......therefore the blame shifts to GA whom they don't trust. Maybe since the data didn't make sense to them, it could have been an accident, that GA was involved and so they totally dismissed the data rather than go over testimony, datasheets, asked questions to the court while deliberating for clarification, etc., etc.

I believe I see what happened if I go by the discussions I've referred to here to compare those scenarios to. No criticism, just an observance that I thought maybe I would share. If you step back and view a lot of the posts as possible jury conversations, IMO, it becomes clear. You really can't argue hard data, the tricky part is getting the people you need to understand to "get it". Apparantly, some of the jurors weren't able to consider that both Dr.'s may have been correct for their area of expertise and the accuracy of their reports as evidence was presented. It will be interesting in the future as time allows to see if this "sniffer machine" makes it's debut into the forensic world of law enforcement and if it gets good reviews, the verdict will be one that the jurors will have a good long while to wonder why they didn't do things more diligently. JMO

 

[Little Black Dress]

Or for more cakes and pies from the Dessert Lady ...

Don't forget their movie lists, too.

 

[Boytwnmom]

making the determination of whether the manner of death was homicide would be circumstances around the death and whether the parent's failure to be aware of a substantial risk that the child will die is a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person, and/or whether the parent(s) hid the death and lied to the police and made up misleading stories. If your child has a fever and then dies before you get medical care most people would not be thinking about whether or not they would be legally culpable unless they had a reason to think that, i.e. as in they had delayed medical care for an illegitimate reason and thus did not act as a reasonable person would. Parents do have responsibilities to their children despite what some people in Florida think and in most civilized places will be held responsible for the failure to provide essential medical care that results in a fatality.

IMO, not bringing your child to the hospital with a high fever could be considered an accident. Not understanding at what point you take care of a fever yourself or involve the emergency room. This article also said that mothers often dispose of their children's bodies in the home or in their backyard. Down the street, around the corner into a swamp isn't really in your backyard.

 

[MaryAnn]

The jury didn't have any problems sending a note to the judge asking to watch a sporting event. When it came to evidence---not so much interest.

IMO

or for Pretzels?

 

[Baznme]

IMO, not bringing your child to the hospital with a high fever could be considered an accident. Not understanding at what point you take care of a fever yourself or involve the emergency room. This article also said that mothers often dispose of their children's bodies in the home or in their backyard. Down the street, around the corner into a swamp isn't really in your backyard.

Becca, I cannot believe your statement. If you don't bring your child to the hospital with a high fever and you had a hospital available to you, you are deemed neglectful. That is deliberate on your part not to seek medical attention to a child that could either go into convulsions or possibly die. That's no accident. If the child dies, you could be brought up on charges. At least, that's the way it is in Florida. My DIL is a nurse and she's seen it all in the ER.

Also, are you saying that Caylee being 15 houses away from her home, in the swamp, not disposed of in the home or the backyard makes it ........NOT an accident?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The jury didn't have any problems sending a note to the judge asking to watch a sporting event. When it came to evidence---not so much interest.

IMO

Good way to illustrate the priorities and mentality of that bunch. Sports and junk food.

 

[beccalecca1]

making the determination of whether the manner of death was homicide would be circumstances around the death and whether the parent's failure to be aware of a substantial risk that the child will die is a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person, and/or whether the parent(s) hid the death and lied to the police and made up misleading stories. If your child has a fever and then dies before you get medical care most people would not be thinking about whether or not they would be legally culpable unless they had a reason to think that, i.e. as in they had delayed medical care for an illegitimate reason and thus did not act as a reasonable person would. Parents do have responsibilities to their children despite what some people in Florida think and in most civilized places will be held responsible for the failure to provide essential medical care that results in a fatality.

This was my assumption with the accidental death by fever. Your child is running a fever, you don't have a thermometer so you don't know how high it is. You don't have antipyretics (possibly because you're poor?) so you ship your child off to bed hoping his body will take care of the problem. You and your husband then go to bed. You wake up in the morning and find your child dead. Out of guilt/fear/whatever.... you decide between you and your husband to not tell authorities because you just can deal with the overwhelming embarrassment, etc. So, you hold a "burial" in your front yard, under your crawlspace.

In essence, this is IMO an accident. It was neglect, but not neglect intentionally causing gross harm to another human being.

MOO

 

[beccalecca1]

Becca, I cannot believe your statement. If you don't bring your child to the hospital with a high fever and you had a hospital available to you, you are deemed neglectful. That is deliberate on your part not to seek medical attention to a child that could either go into convulsions or possibly die. That's no accident. If the child dies, you could be brought up on charges. At least, that's the way it is in Florida. My DIL is a nurse and she's seen it all in the ER.

Also, are you saying that Caylee being 15 houses away from her home, in the swamp, not disposed of in the home or the backyard makes it ........NOT an accident?

I'm saying that part of the article was bolded so I gave my interpretation of the backyard. I am also a nurse; but being a nurse doesn't give you direct knowledge of what charges would be brought in front of who.

 

[imagirlgeek]

This was my assumption with the accidental death by fever. Your child is running a fever, you don't have a thermometer so you don't know how high it is. You don't have antipyretics (possibly because you're poor?) so you ship your child off to bed hoping his body will take care of the problem. You and your husband then go to bed. You wake up in the morning and find your child dead. Out of guilt/fear/whatever.... you decide between you and your husband to not tell authorities because you just can deal with the overwhelming embarrassment, etc. So, you hold a "burial" in your front yard, under your crawlspace.

In essence, this is IMO an accident. It was neglect, but not neglect intentionally causing gross harm to another human being.

MOO

IMO, in this hypothetical situation, these hypothetical parents made the choice not to seek help from one of the many support resources available in this country. ie. church, free clinic, county hospital, various other government assistance programs. And the fact that they were, hypothetically, embarrassed, etc. means (to me) that they knew they made the absolute wrong choice just ignoring the illness and hoping it would get better. Calling the authorities would offer credibility to it being an accident/bad judgement. Hiding the body shows guilt and fear of being 'caught'.

This scenario allows me to point out, in my point of view, that your actions/choices both before and after a death occurs highlights the level of responsibility. These hypothetical parents had shame or embarrassment and that was more important to them than the need to call for help or honor their child with a proper burial.

Completely and totally MOO.

 

[treeseeker]

Another point about this board quite possibly mirroring the jury: GA's possible abuse of KC has been thoroughly discussed here, and a good number of people sincerely believed it long before the trial. Many people felt KC's behavior in general was a result of abuse. Although I personally disagree, it was no shock that JB presented it and no shock the jury considered it. IMO.

 

[butwhatif?]

Becca, I cannot believe your statement. If you don't bring your child to the hospital with a high fever and you had a hospital available to you, you are deemed neglectful. That is deliberate on your part not to seek medical attention to a child that could either go into convulsions or possibly die. That's no accident. If the child dies, you could be brought up on charges. At least, that's the way it is in Florida. My DIL is a nurse and she's seen it all in the ER.

Also, are you saying that Caylee being 15 houses away from her home, in the swamp, not disposed of in the home or the backyard makes it ........NOT an accident?

BBM- going a bit OT here, but my kids recently had 5th disease. One of them had a ridiculously high fever for a solid week. When I took her to the ER (which happens to be the best children's hospital in our country), I was told numerous times that a fever is a good thing. :waitasec:
They even gave me a print out about it and made me feel like I was over-reacting, because I had the same concerns you state in your post.
So next time she have a fever, am I negligent if I give her medicine, but don't seek medical treatment?
A fever is more in the grey area, than a drowning which is black and white IMO.

 

[MissJames]

BBM- going a bit OT here, but my kids recently had 5th disease. One of them had a ridiculously high fever for a solid week. When I took her to the ER (which happens to be the best children's hospital in our country), I was told numerous times that a fever is a good thing. :waitasec:
They even gave me a print out about it and made me feel like I was over-reacting, because I had the same concerns you state in your post.
So next time she have a fever, am I negligent if I give her medicine, but don't seek medical treatment?
A fever is more in the grey area, than a drowning which is black and white IMO.

JMO, But I find that shocking! It could be meningitis or sepsis. Even strep throat could possibly lead to a fatality if not treated.
Kids run fever and the fever itself is supposed to help fight infection,but a very high fever(104+) can be dangerous or can be indicitive of a serious problem.A lot has to do with how lethargic a child is and what other symptoms are involved. The outcome is when charges are considered,anyway.Just because you don't seek medical help for a fever doesn't make you negligent at all. Not seeking help when a child has a high fever,is limp and lethargic,not eating or drinking ,and the child dies,that's when you may be charged with neglect.

 

[kelian36]

Becca, I cannot believe your statement. If you don't bring your child to the hospital with a high fever and you had a hospital available to you, you are deemed neglectful. That is deliberate on your part not to seek medical attention to a child that could either go into convulsions or possibly die. That's no accident. If the child dies, you could be brought up on charges. At least, that's the way it is in Florida. My DIL is a nurse and she's seen it all in the ER.

Also, are you saying that Caylee being 15 houses away from her home, in the swamp, not disposed of in the home or the backyard makes it ........NOT an accident?

I'll just say ditto because I don't want a TO.

 

[RR0004]

From reading the posts today, seeing the disagreement regarding the expert testimonies, although refuted between the DT and PT, occurred to me that this must have been what it was like in the jury room. Discussion amongst the jurors as to whether or not Dr. Vass or Dr. Furton's data was accurate. The air samples were just the beginning of the dismissal of hard evidence. If you can't see the decomp in the trunk of the car, it isn't there, yet if you can "envision" sexual abuse inflicted on KC, it must be so......therefore the blame shifts to GA whom they don't trust. Maybe since the data didn't make sense to them, it could have been an accident, that GA was involved and so they totally dismissed the data rather than go over testimony, datasheets, asked questions to the court while deliberating for clarification, etc., etc.

I believe I see what happened if I go by the discussions I've referred to here to compare those scenarios to. No criticism, just an observance that I thought maybe I would share. If you step back and view a lot of the posts as possible jury conversations, IMO, it becomes clear. You really can't argue hard data, the tricky part is getting the people you need to understand to "get it". Apparantly, some of the jurors weren't able to consider that both Dr.'s may have been correct for their area of expertise and the accuracy of their reports as evidence was presented. It will be interesting in the future as time allows to see if this "sniffer machine" makes it's debut into the forensic world of law enforcement and if it gets good reviews, the verdict will be one that the jurors will have a good long while to wonder why they didn't do things more diligently. JMO

You're assuming they actually had any discussions, right?

 

[RR0004]

BBM- going a bit OT here, but my kids recently had 5th disease. One of them had a ridiculously high fever for a solid week. When I took her to the ER (which happens to be the best children's hospital in our country), I was told numerous times that a fever is a good thing. :waitasec:
They even gave me a print out about it and made me feel like I was over-reacting, because I had the same concerns you state in your post.
So next time she have a fever, am I negligent if I give her medicine, but don't seek medical treatment?
A fever is more in the grey area, than a drowning which is black and white IMO.

Wouldn't you need to see a doctor to get medicine? Or are you just talking about giving an over-the-counter drug?