The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[RR0004]

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

I'm sorry...but that seems like intentional to me. There are county hospitals that can see the child. Plus, neighbors/family can help. Not seeking help is willful intent IMO.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Doctors, nurses, teachers are mandated reporters and should be familiar with what constitutes neglect. I know I have training every year and have familiarized myself with the protocol.

 

[Caligram]

FCA wanted Bella Vita, celebrated her "freedom" from Caylee Marie by getting her Bella Vita tattoo. Guess the jury, not understanding the difference between two "expert witnesses", believed the one who had not participated in studies, the results he took credit for were compiled by his students. This arrogant professor Furton had already caused a delay by trying to introduce “new evidence” that he had not brought up in his original deposition. His test results came from the work his students did, for which he had the audacity to claim credit for as his own. He read reports, studied data, and did no testing of his own. Never had worked with a trained human cadaver dog and urged on by JB talked about false positives – he felt qualified because he read the published works of experts and then he chose to pick that work apart, for a FEE. JB was in his glory, with this so-called expert witness, who was a treasure trove of quotable data that suited their attempt to confuse the jury. Furton was such a find, a joy to work in partnership with JB, tossing words around like quantitative and qualitative which became JB’s newly learned “lawyerish gibberish”. More professorial crap about protocol not being established, no standards and measurements. Even claimed that the odors from the “garbage” could have produced some of the results Dr. Vass had found in his tests. And, BTW, talk about someone looking shifty. Furton was a joke, a poker player who gambled with facts “borrowed” from the works of others. This professor couldn’t measure up to the extensive knowledge, years of real hands-on research with real cadavers, real odors, and real results produced by Dr. Vass. JB was worried, fearful and resentful of Dr. Vass, who held the test results which really proved that a body had begun to decompose in the trunk of FCA’s car. JB used every trick in the book to ridicule this esteemed dedicated man. JB even audaciously outright accused Dr. Vass of seeking fame in this important trial that the whole world was watching. JB said Dr. Vass was only out to try and promote and get the patent for his “sniffer machine” from which he was would “make millions”. It was always a sore spot for JB when it came to intellect and money. Honesty was of no value, didn’t make a damn bit of difference. The jury liked the confrontational in-your-face-bullying style of the DT. They swallowed the bait hook line and sinker.
I know that there will be those wanting to dispute my “recall” of these opinions about Dr. Furby and Dr. Vass. That is fine, I am not going to spend any time going back and checking out every word I used to see if it is exactly as stated during the trial. I only know what I saw and felt, and this is about as close as I can get to it. I won’t claim my age as an excuse either. Since everyone in the courtroom was supposed to forgive finger-man CM and treat him with reverence, he was old and hard of hearing. I’m old, older than CM, and I just wanted justice for Caylee Marie. I really believed in justice and thought I would be fortunate enough to live to see the day justice was done. CM was looking for fun, JB to make a name for himself, and FCA for Bella Vita. Those three got what they wanted, by hook or by crook. What the heck happened to our judicial system to allow this trial by perjury to reach the conclusion I still find hard to accept. Caylee Marie was murdered, and the jury never asked anything about the swamp. Did they think: what the heck was she thinking of to duct tape her little mouth and nose and climb into those bags all by her little self. And why did Caylee Marie chose to throw herself into that swamp for the swamp critters. What a waste this whole trial was, smoke and mirrors got the killer on the loose.
IMHO

 

[RR0004]

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.

Except...they weren't supposed to if I'm understanding the law correctly.

 

[sacrablue]

FCA wanted Bella Vita, celebrated her "freedom" from Caylee Marie by getting her Bella Vita tattoo. Guess the jury, not understanding the difference between two "expert witnesses", believed the one who had not participated in studies, the results he took credit for were compiled by his students. This arrogant professor Furton had already caused a delay by trying to introduce “new evidence” that he had not brought up in his original deposition. His test results came from the work his students did, for which he had the audacity to claim credit for as his own. He read reports, studied data, and did no testing of his own. Never had worked with a trained human cadaver dog and urged on by JB talked about false positives – he felt qualified because he read the published works of experts and then he chose to pick that work apart, for a FEE. JB was in his glory, with this so-called expert witness, who was a treasure trove of quotable data that suited their attempt to confuse the jury. Furton was such a find, a joy to work in partnership with JB, tossing words around like quantitative and qualitative which became JB’s newly learned “lawyerish gibberish”. More professorial crap about protocol not being established, no standards and measurements. Even claimed that the odors from the “garbage” could have produced some of the results Dr. Vass had found in his tests. And, BTW, talk about someone looking shifty. Furton was a joke, a poker player who gambled with facts “borrowed” from the works of others. This professor couldn’t measure up to the extensive knowledge, years of real hands-on research with real cadavers, real odors, and real results produced by Dr. Vass. JB was worried, fearful and resentful of Dr. Vass, who held the test results which really proved that a body had begun to decompose in the trunk of FCA’s car. JB used every trick in the book to ridicule this esteemed dedicated man. JB even audaciously outright accused Dr. Vass of seeking fame in this important trial that the whole world was watching. JB said Dr. Vass was only out to try and promote and get the patent for his “sniffer machine” from which he was would “make millions”. It was always a sore spot for JB when it came to intellect and money. Honesty was of no value, didn’t make a damn bit of difference. The jury liked the confrontational in-your-face-bullying style of the DT. They swallowed the bait hook line and sinker.
I know that there will be those wanting to dispute my “recall” of these opinions about Dr. Furby and Dr. Vass. That is fine, I am not going to spend any time going back and checking out every word I used to see if it is exactly as stated during the trial. I only know what I saw and felt, and this is about as close as I can get to it. I won’t claim my age as an excuse either. Since everyone in the courtroom was supposed to forgive finger-man CM and treat him with reverence, he was old and hard of hearing. I’m old, older than CM, and I just wanted justice for Caylee Marie. I really believed in justice and thought I would be fortunate enough to live to see the day justice was done. CM was looking for fun, JB to make a name for himself, and FCA for Bella Vita. Those three got what they wanted, by hook or by crook. What the heck happened to our judicial system to allow this trial by perjury to reach the conclusion I still find hard to accept. Caylee Marie was murdered, and the jury never asked anything about the swamp. Did they think: what the heck was she thinking of to duct tape her little mouth and nose and climb into those bags all by her little self. And why did Caylee Marie chose to throw herself into that swamp for the swamp critters. What a waste this whole trial was, smoke and mirrors got the killer on the loose.
IMHO

I don't know who you are C but it is so weird to read your material. It's like seeing information appearing before my eyes that follows my thinking to the 'T'. Almost scarry...lol's...... Write a book C!

Good morning ladies and gentlemen (you suckers) of the jury. I have brought before you an expert (hired bs artist) that will prove the prosecution's testimony is nothing more than junk science (devastating evidence against my client ).
__Baez

 

[beccalecca1]

I'm sorry...but that seems like intentional to me. There are county hospitals that can see the child. Plus, neighbors/family can help. Not seeking help is willful intent IMO.

If your child has a fever of 99.9 or below, a hospital will not administer medication generally because that's not considered a high fever. Now, if you chose to go to bed and at some point in the night the fever skyrockets and you're unaware.... are you negligent?

 

[beccalecca1]

Doctors, nurses, teachers are mandated reporters and should be familiar with what constitutes neglect. I know I have training every year and have familiarized myself with the protocol.

I am a reporter, I am not the person who charges people with negligence, abuse, etc. All I do is report if I suspect something. What happens from there is none of my business to be honest.

 

[cityslick]

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.

That still did not answer my question. What does asking questions about the law have to do with whether you understand what Dr. Vass was testifying too? Could it be possible they didn't really understand his testimony so they didn't put much weight in his chloroform evidence? And then at that point, who else did you have testify that puts chloroform in that trunk?

 

[Sustained]

That still did not answer my question. What does asking questions about the law have to do with whether you understand what Dr. Vass was testifying too? Could it be possible they didn't really understand his testimony so they didn't put much weight in his chloroform evidence? And then at that point, who else did you have testify that puts chloroform in that trunk?

Sure, it's possible that they didn't understand the testimony of Dr. Vass. But what do you do if you're reading a book and don't understand a particular section ... I personally go back and reread it, perhaps a few times, until I get it. The jurors never even made an attempt to go back over that testimony. How you discount something if you don't even try to make sense of it ?

 

[LinTX]

That still did not answer my question. What does asking questions about the law have to do with whether you understand what Dr. Vass was testifying too? Could it be possible they didn't really understand his testimony so they didn't put much weight in his chloroform evidence? And then at that point, who else did you have testify that puts chloroform in that trunk?

Dr. Rickenbach (FBI) testified to chloroform...

I didn't watch when the jury was being chosen, but I do know in my state, they are questioned about whether or not they would be able to follow technical/scientific evidence in cases like this. Did that not happen in this one? I realize there has been some criticism of the speed of jury selection in other areas, but was the ability to follow somewhat complex testimony addressed at all?

 

[cityslick]

Sure, it's possible that they didn't understand the testimony of Dr. Vass. But what do you do if you're reading a book and don't understand a particular section ... I personally go back and reread it, perhaps a few times, until I get it. The jurors never even made an attempt to go back over that testimony. How you discount something if you don't even try to make sense of it ?

But wait, you're making an assumption of what they did and did not go over in the deliberation room? That had all evidence and testimony in that room with them. They had transcripts. How do you know they didn't make sense of it?

If either of the jurors that spoke out specifically mentioned that they didn't do this then I stand corrected.

 

[cityslick]

Dr. Rickenbach (FBI) testified to chloroform...

I didn't watch when the jury was being chosen, but I do know in my state, they are questioned about whether or not they would be able to follow technical/scientific evidence in cases like this. Did that not happen in this one? I realize there has been some criticism of the speed of jury selection in other areas, but was the ability to follow somewhat complex testimony addressed at all?

Someone will have to refresh my memory but my recollection recalls they asked them mainly about their exposure to news about this case and how they felt about the DP.

 

[Sustained]

But wait, you're making an assumption of what they did and did not go over in the deliberation room? That had all evidence and testimony in that room with them. They had transcripts. How do you know they didn't make sense of it?

If either of the jurors that spoke out specifically mentioned that they didn't do this then I stand corrected.

And I think it's a fair assumption given what I know about the deliberation time ... 10 hours clock time minus lunch breaks minus bathroom and smoke breaks. A rough estimate of actually time deliberating .. 6 hours. OK, toss in the fact that the jury came to court the 2nd day dressed up as if ready to leave ( they didn't dress up any other day). That to me means they had arrived at their verdict the 1st day.

The State's case was based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, a lot of it very scientific. I hardly think a group of 12 could master all of that evidence in 6 hours and if you believe they made their minds up the 1st day, 3 hours.

 

[Italy]

It is almost comical to listen to some of the jurors defend the verdict.

To listen to their comments, you'd think that collectively they considered themselves to be the world's greatest:
mind reader, psychoanalyst, forensic scientist, chemist, arbiter of facts and justice, legal analyst all bundled into the greatest photographic memory the world has ever seen.


(I recall one comment that they didn't know if the car trunk was used for anything remotely connected to Caylee's body -- even though Jose Baez said in his closing comments that the use of the trunk for transportation was not necessarily murder. Did they really think he was talking about the pizza boxes??)

It was maddening at first - but now it just gives you that sick feeling in your gut.

 

[beccalecca1]

It is almost comical to listen to some of the jurors defend the verdict.

To listen to their comments, you'd think that collectively they considered themselves to be the world's greatest:
mind reader, psychoanalyst, forensic scientist, chemist, arbiter of facts and justice, legal analyst all bundled into the greatest photographic memory the world has ever seen.


(I recall one comment that they didn't know if the car trunk was used for anything remotely connected to Caylee's body -- even though Jose Baez said in his closing comments that the use of the trunk for transportation was not necessarily murder. Did they really think he was talking about the pizza boxes??)

It was maddening at first - but now it just gives you that sick feeling in your gut.

I don't recall Baez saying that... do you know when he said that (beginning, middle, end of closing arguments)? I'd like to actually hear him say that.

 

[cityslick]

And I think it's a fair assumption given what I know about the deliberation time ... 10 hours clock time minus lunch breaks minus bathroom and smoke breaks. A rough estimate of actually time deliberating .. 6 hours. OK, toss in the fact that the jury came to court the 2nd day dressed up as if ready to leave ( they didn't dress up any other day). That to me means they had arrived at their verdict the 1st day.

The State's case was based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, a lot of it very scientific. I hardly think a group of 12 could master all of that evidence in 6 hours and if you believe they made their minds up the 1st day, 3 hours.

I'm not going to get into how many hours is 'required' to deliberate a case like this because to be honest, how many people would question it if it was a guilty verdict? Right or wrong, they obviously went into it with the mindset of looking for something that conclusively linked Casey to the crime. Something that's glossed over but was an important aspect was throughout the trial, a majority of the time it was reported that the jury had very little reaction to what was being testified. No looks of disgust, no looks of disbelief, nothing. That should of been a hint right there of their mindset going in. They weren't automatically biased towards guilt simply because of the 31 days. Whether that's right or wrong is everyone's opinion.

Also, I think there is a difference between child neglect vs. child abuse. From what I understand, the jury was not charged to consider neglect, just abuse.

 

[librazone]

According to these jurors Scott Peterson should be set free. There was less circumstantial evidence in his case than in this one. Everything coming from these jurors is complete BS. The fact that all 12 voted not guilty on counts 2 and 3 should tell us that there is now a great schism in our society regarding critical thought which may go beyond the accepted polarities of liberal versus conservative.

 

[sacrablue]

The location set up for Casey was very important. Goofey almost pathetic looking hairstyles, well timed fake crying and temper tantrums, the stone face poor me look, tiny low in the seat look....what does the average person think about this display? Oh, how could this innocent looking girl possibly do what the prosecution is suggesting? They better have some hard evidence for me to put this girl in jail. As a matter of fact they probably felt sorry for her.
That cake was baked within 2 hours in deliberation of the first day I bet. Not guilty.....

The first thing I would ask the jury members would be "do you believe all the tears from Casey were genuine?" If they say yes I stop...If they say no I move to next question.

 

[beccalecca1]

According to these jurors Scott Peterson should be set free. There was less circumstantial evidence in his case than in this one. Everything coming from these jurors is complete BS. The fact that all 12 voted not guilty on counts 2 and 3 should tell us that there is now a great schism in our society regarding critical thought which may go beyond the accepted polarities of liberal versus conservative.

Wasn't there a hair found in a pair of pliers on a boat that Laci never knew of or been on? That would be a link, IMO.

A hair found in a trunk of Casey's car where Caylee frequently was transported in, and inconclusive if it was post-mortem or banded because of enviromental conditions doesn't link Casey to the crime. No link of the crime scene directly to Casey means no way to connect those dots, unless you want to speculate.

 

[treeseeker]

Except...they weren't supposed to if I'm understanding the law correctly.

No, but there it was. And it served an underlying purpose, not just to excuse KC's behavior. It gave the jury a reason why GA would collaborate with KC. You can't unring a bell, especially one that big.

IMO it showed consciousness of guilt by KC - her need to absolutely disassociate herself from the trunk. But I knew more about the A's history than the jury did.